Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

Provisional Order Bills (No Standing Orders applicable),

Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That in the case of the following Bills, referred on the First Reading thereof, no Standing Orders are applicable, namely:

Marriages Provisional Order (No. 2) Bill.

Newcastle-upon-Tyne Fire Brigade Provisional Order Bill.

Bills to be read a Second time To-morrow.

Thames Conservancy Bill [Lords] (King's Consent and Prince of Wales's Consent signified),

Bill read the Third time, and passed, with Amendments.

Coatbridge Drainage Order Confirmation Bill,

Read the Third time, and passed.

Glasgow Corporation Order Confirmation Bill,

Third Reading deferred till To-morrow.

HOVE PIER BILL [Lords] (By Order).

Order for Second Reading read.

The following Notice of Motion stood upon the Order Paper:

On Second Reading of Hove Pier Bill [Lords], to move,
That it be read a Second time upon this day three months.—[Sir Cooper Rawson.]

Sir COOPER RAWSON: Is it possible for me to give notice that I should like to withdraw the Notice of Motion standing in my name?

Mr. SPEAKER: Yes.

Bill read a Second time, and committed.

Oral Answers to Questions — IMPERIAL ECONOMIC CONFERENCE.

Mr. MANDER: 1.
asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs if he will state what steps are being taken, in view of the importance of certain Dominion markets in the past to manufacturers in this country of locks, latches, keys, steel traps, and trunks, to see that their interests are properly represented at the Ottawa Conference?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for DOMINION AFFAIRS (Mr. Malcolm Mac Donald): I would refer to the reply given to the hon. Member for East Islington (Miss Cazalet) on the 3rd May. The Industrial Advisers there mentioned are in consultation with the various interests in this country and will advise the United Kingdom Delegation on all questions affecting United Kingdom industries. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will be happy to consider in conjunction with the Industrial Advisers any representations that any particular industry may desire to submit.

Mr. MANDER: Can the hon. Member give an assurance that these small trades of local importance are not going to be crowded out by the larger national industries?

Mr. MacDONALD: If they have any representations to make, they will be most carefully and fairly considered.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Will the pottery trade also be considered, as it stands to suffer?

Mr. MacDONALD: We shall consider any schemes put forward by any industry.

Mr. CHARLES WILLIAMS: Are we to conclude that both big and little industries are helped under these tariffs?

Captain ARCHIBALD RAMSAY: 2.
asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs if he is aware that the timber importers of this country had not been consulted up to last week by those who are to represent British timber importers at Ottawa; whether such consultations have taken place within the last few days; and, if not, will he take steps to see that this preliminary to the Ottawa Conference is completed at once?

Mr. M. MacDONALD: As was explained in the reply to the Noble Lord the Member for Horsham and Worthing (Earl Winterton) by my right hon. Friend on the 31st May, it is open to any trade which wishes to do so to lay its views before the Industrial Advisers who will accompany the United Kingdom Delegation to Ottawa, and I would suggest that the special interests referred to should get into touch with the Industrial Advisers as soon as possible.

Captain PETER MACDONALD: 3.
asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs if he can now arrange to publish the preliminary agenda for the Ottawa Conference; and, if not, what are the objections to such action?

Mr. M. MacDONALD: It has been agreed that the agenda shall not be published until its details have been settled as the result of consultation between the Governments concerned. This consultation is now proceeding.

Captain MACDONALD: Can the hon. Member say when he will be able to publish or make known the agenda, in view of the forthcoming Debate on the Ottawa Conference?

Mr. MacDONALD: It is impossible to give any undertaking or to make any promise, but the consultations are fairly far advanced, and the agenda will be published at the earliest possible moment.

Captain MACDONALD: I give notice that I will put this question before the Debate on the Ottawa Conference.

Mr. BUCHANAN: Does the hon. Member not see the necessity for the agenda being published before the Debate takes place?

Mr. MacDONALD: I appreciate that point; but it is also necessary that these consultations should be completed before any publication takes place.

Mr. BUCHANAN: Is it not the whole key of the Debate that the agenda ought to be known, because to a large extent the Debate will be abortive unless the agenda can be published?

Mr. MacDONALD: The House may rest assured that we shall bear the importance of that in mind, and do everything we can to get publication before the Debate takes place.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND COMMERCE.

WEST AFRICAN COLONIES (ANGLO-FRENCH CONVENTION).

Vice-Admiral TAYLOR: 4.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he has considered the advisability of terminating the Anglo-French Convention relating to our West African Colonies, in view of the large proportion of foreign exports going into these Colonies?

The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Runciman): The position is receiving careful consideration, and steps are being taken to consult the trade interests concerned.

Vice-Admiral TAYLOR: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that in 1929, the latest year for which I have the statistics, the foreign imports into Nigeria and the Gold Coast amounted to some £18,000,000 in value, and from this country to some £10,000,000, and, in view of that fact and in the interests of British trade, will he not take steps in order to give this country a free hand in fiscal matters with our own Colonies?

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the welfare of the natives of these Colonies and not simply the interests of the traders?

Vice-Admiral TAYLOR: Can I have an answer?

COKE IMPORTS.

Mr. HALL-CAINE: 5.
asked the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware that three cargoes of Belgian furnace coke have recently been shipped, discharged, and sold in London; whether he will state the selling price as compared with the price of British coke; and whether, as foreign importation is possible even in the face of the low rates prevailing at home, the facts and figures will be laid before the Tariff Commission?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: Yes, Sir. Three cargoes totalling about 1,700 tons have been brought over in the last two months. I understand that the price of British coke in the area affected has been reduced by 1s. 6d.—2s. 6d. a ton to meet this competition. I do not think any action on the lines suggested is necessary at present.

Mr. BATEY: Can the Minister say who got the coke? Was it some of the gas companies?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: I cannot say without notice.

COTTON INDUSTRY.

Mr. REMER: 7.
asked the President of the Board of Trade if he has received any reports as to the reorganisation of the Lancashire cotton industry; and if he will state what part the Lancashire Cotton Corporation has played in those reports?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: A matter in relation to the reorganisation of the Lancashire cotton industry on which I have received representations is the scheme which the industry has under consideration for concentrating production through a levy for the purchase of redundant machinery. As I have already stated in the reply which I gave on the 5th April to the hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. Ehys Davies), I have been in communication with the Joint Committee of Cotton Trade Organisations in regard to that scheme. The Joint Committee is representative of all sections of the industry, and I have had no separate negotiation with the concern to which the hon. Member refers.

Mr. REMER: May I ask if the best means of preventing redundancy in Lancashire would not be the closing down of the Lancashire Cotton Corporation?

Mr. HAMMERSLEY: 9.
asked the President of the Board of Trade what steps he is taking with regard to the representations of the Manchester Cotton Association relating to the desirability in the interests of the trade of raw cotton lying in accredited Manchester warehouses being made tenderable against the Liverpool futures contract?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: I have received a communication on this subject from the Manchester Cotton Association. As the matter seems to me to be one for settlement between the interests concerned, and as the Manchester and Liverpool Cotton Associations and the other interests concerned are all represented on the Joint Committee of Cotton Trade Organisations, I am suggesting in reply that the Joint Committee should be invited to deal with this matter on behalf of the trade as a whole.

Mr. HAMMERSLEY: In view of the fact that on an earlier occasion when there was a conflict of opinion between
Liverpool and Manchester in connection with this matter, the representations of the Board of Trade were the decisive factor, will my right hon. Friend look into it and see whether or not those representations could not be made in this case?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: I hope that an agreement will be reached between Manchester and Liverpool without the intervention of the Board of Trade.

BROMINE IMPORTS.

Major-General Sir ALFRED KNOX: 10.
asked the President of the Board of Trade what amount of bromine has been imported into, and exported from, this country since May, 1931; and what proportion, if any, has been consigned to Germany or Russia?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: During the 12 months ended the 30th April, 1932, the total imports of bromine and bromides into the United Kingdom amounted to 12,410 cwts., and the exports to 1,093 cwts. (including re-exports 664 cwts.). No exports of bromine or bromides were registered during this period as consigned to the Soviet Union, and the only consignments to Germany consisted of 5 cwts. re-exported.

WAR MATERIAL (EXPORT LICENCES).

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: 11.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether, since the system of export licences for arms and ammunition from this country has been in operation any permits have been refused; if so, when and to which firm; and for what country were the materials destined?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: Yes, Sir; in numerous cases, but I am not prepared to give the detailed particulars for which the hon. Member asks.

Mr. WILLIAMS: Can the right hon. Gentleman say why the particulars cannot be given?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: It has never been the custom to give these particulars, and it is undesirable to do so.

Mr. WILLIAMS: In view of the profound interest in all parts of the world in this question, does not the right hon. Gentleman think that such information ought to be available?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: Some information is available, but we cannot make it available in the form which the hon. Member suggests.

Mr. WILLIAMS: Can the right hon. Gentleman suggest any other method whereby the information can be given?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: I do not know of any other.

Mr. WILLIAMS: 12.
asked the President of the Board of Trade the origin of the system of licences for the export of arms and ammunition; whether arms and ammunition manufactured by the overseas branches of British firms and subsequently exported have to be licensed in the same manner; and in which other arms-producing countries there is a similar system of export licences?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: The control of the export of arms and ammunition was first instituted on the outbreak of the Great War, and has continued ever since. The control exercised by this country applies only to exports shipped from United Kingdom ports. As regards the last part of the question, I have no complete information, but I understand that a system of export licences exists in most, if not all, of those arms-producing countries which were signatories of the International Convention for the supervision of the International Trade in Arms and Ammunition and in Implements of War, of 17th June, 1925.

Mr. WILLIAMS: Do I understand from the reply that where English people have firms abroad producing munitions of war they are subject to these licences?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: No, Sir; licences can only apply to exports from this country.

CHINA (CUSTOMS DUTIES).

Mr. NUNN: 37.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has any information as to the extent to which customs duties or other exactions are levied upon goods in transit up the Yangtze River or other parts of the interior of China either by officials of the recognised Chinese Government or by agents of the various generals or bandit chieftains for the time being in control of districts in the interior of the country?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Eden): Various exactions of an irregular character upon goods in transit have been reported from time to time, such as, for example, escort fees in bandit-ridden areas, but it is impossible to give an estimate of the extent to which such exactions are levied.

Mr. NUNN: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that as many as 14 such illegal exactions have been made on one parcel of goods, and that there are many such instances?

Mr. EDEN: That may be, but the Chinese Government did make an attempt to amend this procedure last year, though I cannot say how far they have been successful.

REGISTERED SHIPBUILDING YARDS.

Mr. BURNETT: 48.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury how soon the list will be prepared of registered shipbuilding yards within the meaning of Section 11 of the Import Duties Act, 1932?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Major Elliot): The conditions relating to the registration of shipbuilding yards under Section 11 of the Import Duties Act have recently been the subject of discussion with the interests primarily affected, and it is anticipated that it will be possible to proceed with registration in the near future.

IMPOST DUTIES (SPELTER).

Mr. DAVID GRENFELL: 49.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury the amount of duty which had been imposed previous to the Import Duties Act on foreign spelter imported into the United Kingdom and on spelter from the British Empire, with the date of the imposition of the duty and of any variation in the rate since the duty was imposed?

Major ELLIOT: Prior to the Import Duties Act there was no duty on spelter imported as such. Since the 1st March last the duty has been 10 per cent. ad valorem on foreign spelter, but spelter satisfying the conditions as to Preference is admitted duty free.

IMPORTED HOSIERY.

Mr. COCKS (for Mr. CHARLES BROWN): 6.
asked the President of the
Board of Trade if he is aware that the management of a foreign factory at Mansfield, Nottinghamshire, is importing in a semi-manufactured condition silk and artificial silk hosiery, which is afterwards sold in shops in London and elsewhere with the claim that their factory is at Mansfield, Nottinghamshire; and if he will inquire into the matter and take steps to stop goods being sold under such a misleading description?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: If the hon. Member will furnish me with particulars of the case he has in mind I will cause inquiries to be made.

INSURANCE COMPANIES (BRITISH POLICY HOLDERS).

Mr. LEONARD: 8.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he contemplates the introduction of legislation designed to protect the interests of British policy holders in insurance companies and corporations registered out-with this country?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: No, Sir. Insurance companies registered abroad which do business in this country are already subject to the same general requirements in this country as insurance companies registered here.

Mr. LEONARD: Has the right hon. Gentleman's attention been drawn to the references in regard to such companies in the "Economist" and the "Investors Chronicle," and also in the Canadian Press; is he aware that one such company has been precluded from doing business in an American city, for the protection of its citizens; and, if so, do the Government contemplate legislation in this country?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: I should require notice of a question of that nature.

RIVER EXE (DREDGING).

Lieut.-Colonel ACLAND-TROYTE: 13.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he has yet received the report of His Majesty's Ship "Flinders" on the estuary of the River Exe; and whether he is now prepared to grant permission to men from Topsham to dredge for sand and gravel?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: It is hoped that prints of the chart resulting from the recent survey will be available during this month. The question of dredging will then be examined by my Department in conjunction with the authorities concerned.

Oral Answers to Questions — GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS.

BOARD OF TRADE.

Colonel GRETTON: 14.
asked the President of the Board of Trade what was the total number of the staff employed by the Board of Trade in 1913 and the total of their salaries; and what was the number of the staff in 1931 and the total of their salaries, in the latter case not including the Mines Department and the Overseas Trade Department?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: I regret that there are no figures readily available relating to the year 1913, but the staff of the Board of Trade, excluding the branches later transferred to the Ministry of Labour, the Ministry of Transport and the Department of Overseas Trade, numbered on the 1st August, 1914, 2,502, and the salary cost of this staff was £466,317 per annum. The average number of staff serving during 1931–32 in the Board, excluding Mines Department and the Department of Overseas Trade, but including Sea Transport Department and the Coastguard transferred since 1914 from other Government Departments, was 4,015, and the total salary cost of staff during that year was £1,159,870. The staff numbers now about 3,930.

Colonel GRETTON: Can the right hon. Gentleman give me the numbers of the staff of the coastguards and other services which have been transferred to the Board of Trade, if I put down a question?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: I shall be glad to do so.

Mr. NEIL MACLEAN: Can the right hon. Gentleman say how many have been added to the staff as a result of the Import Duties?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: None.

SICK LEAVE.

Mr. LEONARD (for Mr. McENTEE): 46.
asked the Financial Secre-
tary to the Treasury whether every excise officer is expected to take six days' sick leave whether he is sick or not; and whether he will state what are the regulations governing sick leave in the Civil Service generally?

Major ELLIOT: There is no foundation whatever for the suggestion that every excise officer is expected to take six days' sick leave whether he is sick or not. Any officer who absented himself from duty on a plea of illness which could not be justified would be regarded as guilty of a serious breach of discipline. As regards the second part of the question the position in the established Civil Service generally is that sick leave may be granted by the head of a department to an officer subject to the following conditions:

(a) after two days continued absence a medical certificate is required;
(b) if the number of days of sick absence without certificate exceeds seven a year the number of days absence in excess of seven is deducted from ordinary leave.

If the hon. Member desires to have copies of the actual regulations governing sick leave in the Civil Service (Treasury Regulations dated 6th June, 1929, made under Article 6 of the Order in Council of 22nd July, 1920, and Treasury Memorandum of 24th April, 1925), I shall be happy to send him copies.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH ARMY.

ROYAL TANK CORPS (RECORD OFFICE).

Mr. ATTLEE: 15.
asked the Financial Secretary to the War Office, with regard to the proposed transfer of the record and pay office of the Royal Tank Corps from Barnet, if he will consider the possibility of utilising the accommodation which exists at Mill Hill Barracks in order to avoid the inconvenience to the staff which would be caused if a more distant locality is selected?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Duff Cooper): I can assure the hon. and gallant Member that, in the event of it being decided to move, the possibility of using Mill Hill Barracks will not be overlooked.

CONTRACTORS (INDIA TYRE AND RUBBER COMPANY).

Mr. KIRKWOOD: 16.
asked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether the India Tyre and Rubber Company, Inchinnan, is on the list of contractors to his Department?

Mr. COOPER: No, Sir, but the question of placing the firm upon the Department's list of contractors is under consideration.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: I did not quite hear the answer to my question. Is this firm on your list?

Mr. COOPER: No, Sir.

TERRITORIAL OFFICERS (APPOINTMENTS).

Brigadier-General NATION: 17.
asked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether, in view of the fact that there is nothing in the Regulations to prevent the appointment of Territorial Army officers; to the command of Territorial Army divisions, he will issue instructions to commands that the qualification and recommendation for such appointments should be entered in the annual confidential reports for Territorial officers in a similar manner to that for Regular officers?

Mr. COOPER: The point raised by my hon. and gallant Friend is already met by existing Regulations.

Sir ASSHETON POWNALL: In view of the reply, may I ask whether, as there are a number of Territorial officers now commanding brigades, it would not be possible for at least one Territorial officer to be given command of one Territorial Army division?

Mr. MICHAEL BEAUMONT: Does the hon. Member realise that the number of Territorial officers who can accept this position is negligible, and that the number who want it is even less?

MILITARY TATTOOS.

Brigadier-General NATION: 18.
asked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether, in view of the increasing number and magnitude of military tattoos and the time given to their preparation, the Army Council are satisfied that there is no curtailment of training for those of all ranks employed in these annual displays; and can he assure the House that
there is no loss of efficiency in the Army as a result of its undertaking this kind of work?

Mr. COOPER: My hon. and gallant Friend is under a misapprehension in thinking that the number and size of the military tattoos are increasing. I am satisfied that tattoos are not permitted to curtail the training of the Army and that the work in connection with them has considerable value for training purposes.

SURGICAL DRESSINGS.

Mr. McGOVERN: 19.
asked the Financial Secretary to the War Office if he is aware that, as a result of the recent economy proposals of the Government, the military authorities have ordered all bandages to be re-used after boiling, and all lint dressings worn by patients which are not unduly soiled to be used a second time, the purchase of antiseptic boracic lint is forbidden, and plain white lint is to serve for the same purpose; and whether, in the interests of the health of the troops, he will have these instructions withdrawn?

Mr. COOPER: I am aware that the notice of all concerned has been drawn to the substantial economy which can be effected by the washing of bandages and the further use of unstained dressings, and that, in the interests of economy, boracic powder and plain lint will in future be issued in place of boracic lint. The Army Medical authorities are satisfied that these economies will in no way affect the health of the troops.

Mr. McGOVERN: Will the hon. Member consult his medical officers again, because I have had representations from a number who say that this economy is most detrimental to the persons concerned.

Mr. COOPER: I have consulted the medical authorities and their answer is definite, and their views quite plain. I see no reason to consult them again on the subject.

Mr. MAXTON: Will the hon. Gentleman tell us how much his Department hopes to save by this somewhat disgusting economy?

Mr. COOPER: Not without notice.

Oral Answers to Questions — SCOTLAND.

INSURED PERSON'S DEATH, GLASGOW.

Mr. BUCHANAN: 21.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is aware that Miss Dunnett, 44, Cook Street, Glasgow, was on the 25th February visited by a sick visitor, and as a result was called to a medical board on 4th March to be examined by the regional medical officer of the Department of Health; that the girl attended although very ill; that her sickness benefit was stopped on 1st March, and that she was taken ill at the board and sent home by taximeter cab, and subsequently died on 13th March; and if he will cause full inquiry to be made into all the circumstances?

The UNDERSECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Mr. Skelton): According to a report which I have received about this case, Miss Dunnett, who was suffering from rheumatism, was seen by her insurance doctor on the 1st March, when he considered that her condition was such as to justify his certifying her as fit to attend for examination by a medical officer of the Department of Health for Scotland on the 4th March. Between these dates, however, unknown to her doctor, she developed influenzal bronchial pneumonia, and on her arrival at the regional medical office of the Department for examination, her condition was observed and she was immediately sent home in a taxicab. I am sorry to say that Miss Dunnett died nine days later. It is a matter for regret that she was allowed to leave home on the 4th March, but I am satisfied that no responsibility for this can reasonably be attributed either to the insurance doctor or to the arrangements for the examination of insured persons under the regional medical service. I may add that the approved society have informed me that sickness benefit was paid to Miss Dunnett until the 12th March.

Mr. BUCHANAN: Is the Under-Secretary aware that sickness benefit was only paid subsequent to the death, and has been stopped, and that this girl was afraid to refuse to go to the medical board after being visited by the sick visitor, and that the panel doctor was afraid that he would be censured if she did not attend?

Mr. SKELTON: As to the payment of sick benefit, my information is the opposite of that of the hon. Member. In regard to the other allegations, I have absolutely no foundation for any of them.

Mr. BUCHANAN: I give notice that I shall raise this matter at the first possible opportunity on the Adjournment.

WHEAT OFFALS (EXPORT).

Duchess of ATHOLL: 22.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is aware that wheat offals have recently been so scarce in Scotland that they have been selling at £7 a ton, which is higher than the price of wheat; and if he will state whether this scarcity is due to exportation licensed by a recognised millers' association?

The SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Major Sir Archibald Sinclair): I am aware that the price of wheat offals in Scotland is as stated by my Noble Friend, but the suggestion made in the second part of her question is not supported by the statistics relating to the exportation of wheat offals from the United Kingdom, which show no increase in the current year as compared with previous years.

Duchess of ATHOLL: Does not the Secretary of State remember the assurance given by the Minister of Agriculture in one of the Debates on the Wheat Quota Bill, to the effect that he hoped there would be little or no export of wheat offals except under licence. I do not think that I have had an answer to that part of my question.

Sir A. SINCLAIR: Yes, but that undertaking has hardly come into operation yet, and my figures refer to the first four months of the year.

LICENSING LAW (CLUBS).

Mr. McGOVERN: 25.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is prepared to introduce legislation limiting the hours of drinking clubs in Scotland to the same as other licensed premises, and providing for police inspection of the same, as recommended by the chief of police in Glasgow in his annual report?

Sir A. SINCLAIR: The recommendations referred to will be kept in view in connection with the recommendations of the Royal Commission on Licensing in
Scotland. I would remind the hon. Member that the number of hours during which exciseable liquor may be sold or supplied in clubs on weekdays is the same as in the case of licensed premises, namely, eight hours. In regard to police inspection, the recommendation of the Royal Commission for Scotland was of a more limited character than the proposals of the chief constable. I am not in a position to make any pronouncement as to legislation.

Mr. McGOVERN: Can the right hon. Gentleman give any indication of an early desire on the part of his Department to give the police facilities for inspecting these clubs as desired by the chief constable?

Sir A. SINCLAIR: As to the possibility of introducing legislation on this question, I can only say that it is quite impossible at the moment, and I cannot make any announcement now.

Mr. C. WILLIAMS: Have not the police of Glasgow plenty to do without interfering in this matter?

SILK TRIAL, EDINBURGH.

Mr. McGOVERN: 26.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland the costs to the Crown of the recent Silk trial at Edinburgh up to the date of the sentences; and the total amount of money involved in the frauds?

Sir A. SINCLAIR: The account of the costs referred to is in course of preparation and will be completed on the conclusion of the Appeals which are now pending. The amount involved in the first charge was £439,348, and in the second charge £362,733.

Mr. McGOVERN: Is there any minute by which the right hon. Gentleman can tell me the number of persons who had money invested in this business?

Sir A. SINCLAIR: I am afraid I could not give an answer. Certainly I could not without notice.

Mr. BUCHANAN: Does that figure include only the costs of the Crown? There is no cost of the defence in this £750,000?

Sir A. SINCLAIR: That is the amount involved in the charge; the cost is nothing like that.

Mr. McGOVERN: I have put this question on the Paper three or four times. Can the right hon. Gentleman give any indication of the amount within a reasonable time if I put a question on the Paper again?

Sir A. SINCLAIR: I will let the hon. Member know as soon as I am in a. position to inform him. I cannot do better than that.

HOUSING.

Mr. MACLEAN (for Mr. DUNCAN GRAHAM): 23.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland the names of the county and burgh local authorities who have failed to comply with the terms of Section 22, Sub-section (2), of the Act of 1930, requesting them to state the number of houses required to meet the needs of their areas?

Mr. SKELTON: The county and burgh local authorities who have not yet submitted to the Department of Health for Scotland the general statement of the housing needs of their areas as required by Sub-section (2) of Section 22 of the Housing (Scotland) Act, 1930, are the county councils of Aberdeen, Dumfries, Inverness, Orkney, Ross and Cromarty, and Roxburgh, and the town councils of Cromarty, Falkland, Grantown-on-Spey, Kirkcudbright, Lerwick, Lochgilphead, Stonehaven, Tain, Tayport, and Wick.

BUILDING MATERIALS (PRICES).

Mr. MACLEAN (for Mr. D. GRAHAM): 24.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is aware of the rise in the price of glazed fireclay goods and also in the price of bricks; will he state the date when the attention of the Interdepartmental Committee on the Prices of Building Materials was drawn to the matter; whether they have inquired into the complaint; and with what result?

Mr. SKELTON: I am aware of the rise in prices referred to. The attention of the Inter-departmental Committee on Prices of Building Materials was drawn to the matter in June and August of last year. That Committee made inquiries and decided that the circumstances did not warrant any action on their part meantime.

Mr. MACLEAN: Will any information which is derived from the inquiry be cir-
culated so that we may know exactly what are the reasons for the increase of price?

Mr. SKELTON: I shall have inquiry made into that question.

Mr. MACLEAN: The question asks whether inquiry has been made.

Mr. SKELTON: I dealt with that when I said that the committee had made inquiries, but that the circumstances did not warrant any action on their part in the meantime.

Oral Answers to Questions — COAL INDUSTRY.

ROYALTY RENTS (CHURCH ESTATES, DURHAM).

Mr. BATEY: 31.
asked the hon. Member for Central Leeds, as representing the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, if the Commissioners will now consider a reduction in the amount charged by them for royalty rents for coal in Durham, and for the amount remitted to be used directly for the benefit of the miners at the particular collieries?

Mr. DENMAN (Second Church Estates Commissioner): It is not in the power of the Commissioners to deal with a portion of their revenues in the manner suggested, the whole being devoted by Act of Parliament to other clearly defined purposes.

MINERS' WELFARE FUND.

Mr. JOHN (for Sir WILLIAM JENKINS): 27.
asked the Secretary for Mines the amount of money that has been paid into the Miners' Welfare Fund; the amount allocated to each area separately and the amount paid into the central fund; and the balance in hand at the central fund and area funds at the last available date?

The SECRETARY for MINES (Mr. Isaac Foot): The total amount paid into the Miners' Welfare Fund, up to the 31st May last, was £12,626,664, of which £8,650,415 had been credited to the Districts Fund, £1,809,245 to the General Fund and £2,167,004 to the Royalties Welfare Levy Fund. The balance of the Welfare Fund at that date was £2,650,467, divided as follows: Districts Fund, £1,354,990; General Fund, £394,925; Royalties Welfare Levy Fund, £900,552. Of this balance £1,433,722 has definitely
been allocated for pithead baths and other purposes and a substantial portion of the remainder earmarked for specific purposes either by the Central Committee or by the District Committees. I am sending the hon. Member the other details for which he asks.

Mr. LUNN: Can the hon. Gentleman say what is the balance remaining?

Mr. FOOT: The balance is here stated at £2,650,000. Of that, £1,433,000 has been allocated and, by a hasty calculation, it will be seen that the difference is about £1,200,000.

Mr. JOHN (for Sir W. JENKINS): 28.
asked the Secretary for Mines what progress is being made with the Committee of Inquiry into the Miners' Welfare Fund; and when is the report likely to be published?

Mr. FOOT: I am informed that the committee expect to complete their taking of evidence this month, and hope to present their report in the early autumn.

ANTHRACOSIS.

Mr. JOHN (for Sir W. JENKINS): 35.
asked the Lord President of the Council whether the Medical Research Council is still inquiring into the effect of coal dust upon underground workers who are suffering from anthracosis; and, if so, when will the report be published?

The LORD PRESIDENT of the COUNCIL (Mr. Baldwin): The matter continues to receive the attention of the Industrial Pulmonary Diseases Committee of the Medical Research Council, but I am advised that serious difficulties are still being met in finding trustworthy methods of investigation. There is at present no question of a report.

Oral Answers to Questions — POST OFFICE (AIR MAIL RATES).

Captain P. MACDONALD: 32.
asked the Postmaster-General for what reasons air mail and telegraphic rates have been so adjusted as to enable a profit to be made on the former and a loss to be incurred on the latter; and whether he has caused any investigations to be made with a view to ascertaining the probability of a rapid increase being made in the use of the air mail if the rates thereon wore substantially lowered?

The ASSISTANT POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Graham White): Air mail rates are fixed at the lowest figure consistent with avoiding an actual loss on the service; and while a substantial reduction in rates would no doubt lead to a growth in traffic, such a reduction cannot be given without appreciable loss, as there is no immediate prospect of a reduction in the costs of transport, many of which are fixed by international agreement. As regards the reason for the telegraph deficit, it is not possible within the limits of a reply to a question to deal with this matter, but my hon. and gallant Friend will find the matter fully discussed at various times during the course of Debates on the Post Office Estimates.

Captain MACDONALD: 33.
asked the Postmaster-General whether the preferential postage rates given on ordinary correspondence within the Empire are reflected in the rates charged on air-mail correspondence within and without the Empire; and, if not, for what reason such preference is not extended to Empire airmail correspondence?

Mr. WHITE: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative: the second part therefore does not arise.

Oral Answers to Questions — EGGS (PRICE).

Lieut.-Colonel ACLAND-TROYTE: 34.
asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he is aware that farmers in Devonshire have been receiving eightpence a dozen for eggs and in Cornwall even less, while they are being sold in London at from 1s. 3d. to 1s. 6d.; and whether he proposes to take any action in the matter?

The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE (Sir John Gilmour): The low prices quoted by my hon. and gallant Friend are probably those paid for ungraded eggs. The retail prices to which he refers are the highest prices paid for special weight eggs. A large proportion of the ungraded eggs retailed in London are being sold at 1s. a dozen. The margin between the prices at which eggs are purchased and sold is not, therefore, so wide as my hon. and gallant Friend suggests. The remedy rests to a large extent with the producers themselves.

Lieut.-Colonel ACLAND-TROYTE: Is not the reason why the price paid is so low, largely owing to foreign dumping, and cannot anything be done to stop it?

Mr. CHARLES DUNCAN: Is it due to the fact that the hens are laying?

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSING SUBSIDY.

Sir PARK GOFF: 38.
asked the Minister of Health whether, in the interests of economy, he will notify local authorities that the housing grants from public funds were not intended by this House to provide houses for persons in a position to pay economic rents or to buy houses through building societies, and that subsidy houses should be reserved for the wage earners for whom they were and are intended?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of HEALTH (Mr. Ernest Brown): The attention of local authorities was directed to this matter in the Annual Report of the Department for the year 1930–31. In his report for the year 1931–32 my right hon. Friend proposes to deal further with the maintenance of the principle that subsidised tenancies should not be provided for those who can afford to provide for themselves.

Sir P. GOFF: Is my hon. Friend aware that this subsidy is being abused and that a careful scrutiny of the applicants would save some millions of national expenditure?

Mr. BROWN: If my hon. Friend will look at page 98 of the Report to which I have referred, he will find the matter dealt with fully.

Oral Answers to Questions — WESTMINSTER CRYPT.

Mr. BURNETT: 39.
asked the First Commissioner of Works for what reason he proposes to retain the existing painting and tiling of Westminster Crypt (St. Mary's Chapel Undercroft)?

The FIRST COMMISSIONER of WORKS (Mr. Ormsby-Gore): I fear I have nothing to add to the reply I gave to my hon. Friend on the 20th April last.

Mr. BURNETT: Does the right hon. Gentleman remember that he asked me
what were the decorations to which I objected?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: If my hon. Friend will make representations to me, and see me about it, I will go further into the matter. But I cannot hold out any hope that public funds will be available to make any alteration in the crypt decorations.

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTERS' POWERS.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir MERVYN MANNINGHAM-BULLER: 40.
asked the Prime Minister whether the Government proposes to take any and, if so, what action to carry out the recommendations of the committee on Ministers' powers and, in particular, those regarding the assignment of judicial functions to Ministers in matter affecting their own Departments?

The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Ramsay MacDonald): The question put by my hon. and gallant Friend is one which cannot be decided hastily, and in the present state of business it cannot be dealt with before the House rises, but the Government will consider it as soon as possible after the summer Recess.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL FINANCE.

BEER DUTY.

Sir A. KNOX: 41.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will give the output of British breweries, in standard barrels, for the first three months of 1931 and for the corresponding months of 1932, and state the extra sum obtained by the increased tax in this period?

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Chamberlain): As regards the first part of the question, I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the answer given on 6th April to the hon. Member for East Woolwich (Mr. Hicks). As regards the second part, it is not possible to state what additional revenue the increased duty has produced, since this depends on what the consumption would have been had there been no increase.

UNITED STATES (BRITISH DEBT).

Mr. HAMMERSLEY: 42.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will
explain why the Government has agreed to pay 4 per cent. interest on the postponed debts to the United States under the Hoover plan in view of the prevailing low rates for borrowed money?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I assume that my hon. Friend has in mind the low rates on three months bills, but I would point out that the proposal to which he refers was authorised by the United States Congress on 22nd December, 1931, on the basis that the period of repayment was 10 years.

Mr. HAMMERSLEY: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, in a reply recently given, it was stated that the rate of interest was arrived at, not by a unilateral statement but by agreement? Have not the Government made any protest in respect of the rate of interest charged by the United States? That is my question.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: No, Sir. My hon. Friend's question is not that at all. If he will read it, he will see that the question is different. I have answered the question on the Paper.

Mr. HAMMERSLEY: Arising out of that reply, would my right hon. Friend now say whether or not any protest was made or any representations made in respect of the rate of interest?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: No, Sir; no protest was made.

Mr. HAMMERSLEY: No representations?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: No protest.

Mr. CRAVEN-ELLIS: In view of the possibility that this House may not consent to the renewal of the War Debt payment to the United States, why make the position more difficult?

Mr. SPEAKER: That is entirely hypothetical.

Mr. HAMMERSLEY: 43.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether our agreement to pay 4 per cent. interest on the postponed debts to the United States under the Hoover plan was arrived at after consultation with France and Italy?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: His Majesty's Government gave instructions in regard
to the signing of the agreement on the subject of the amounts due to the United States and suspended under President Hoover's Plan in the knowledge that similar action was being taken by the French and Italian Governments.

Mr. HAMMERSLEY: Has my right hon. Friend any knowledge as to when France and Italy propose to sign?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I require notice of that question.

TAXATION (BICYCLES).

Sir PERCY HURD: 44.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury what revenue would be obtained from a tax of 2s. 6d. on bicycles; and whether any proposal for the taxation of bicycles has been under consideration?

Major ELLIOT: As indicated in the answer given on the 3rd May by my right hon. Friend to the hon. and gallant Member for the Ashford Division (Captain Knatchbull), the information available is not sufficient to enable me to estimate the revenue which would be derived from a tax of 2s. 6d. on bicycles. It is safe to say, however, that the cost of collection and administration of such a tax would be comparatively high and the net yield, after allowing for probable exemptions and withdrawals from use, comparatively small.

INCOME TAX (POTATO GROWERS).

Mr. LEONARD: 45.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether he is aware that potato dealer-growers are escaping from Income Tax and Super-tax upon their profits owing to the fact that their Income Tax is based on the rent paid to the farmer for his land and not on their profits; and what steps he proposes to compel payment on profits?

Major ELLIOT: The position is not exactly as stated by the hon. Member. It is the case that under the provisions of the Income Tax Acts potato growers are assessable under Schedule B on the annual value of the land they occupy and not upon profits. Where, however, they also deal in potatoes, any profits arising in the course of such business are assessable under Schedule D. Any alteration of the basis of assessment would, of course, necessitate legislation.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSE OF COMMONS (DIVISION LISTS).

Mr. LLEWELLYN-JONES: 47.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury the average annual cost for the past three-years of printing the Division lists for each day in the Votes and Proceedings of the House of Commons?

Major ELLIOT: The average annual cost for the past three Sessions, namely, 1928–29, 1929–30 and 1930–31 of printing the Division lists for each day in the Votes and Proceedings of the House of Commons was £1,800.

Mr. LLEWELLYN-JONES: Does my right hon. and gallant Friend realise that each day this information is duplicated, appearing in the Votes and also in a more permanent form in the OFFICIAL REPORT; and, whether, having regard to the huge cost incurred, he will, in the interests of economy, consider the question of not printing the Division lists in the Votes?

Major ELLIOT: That is, of course, a matter for the House. I understand that a Select Committee is now inquiring into these printing costs.

Sir JOHN WARDLAW-MILNE: Will my right hon. and gallant Friend consider the desirability of recommending that the Division lists should not be printed at all?

Oral Answers to Questions — CHURCH ESTATES, PADDINGTON.

Mr. GODFREY NICHOLSON (for Mr. GOLDIE): 29.
asked the hon. Member for Central Leeds, as representing the Ecclesiastical Commissioners the amount of revenue received by the Commissioners for the year ended 31st October, 1931, from their estates in the borough of Paddington; the amount by which that revenue exceeds the revenue in the year ended 31st October, 1921; and the total amount received during that period from the renewal of leases on these estates?

Mr. DENMAN: The revenue of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners from estates in the borough of Paddington was for the year to 31st October, 1931, £69,694. This exceeded the corresponding rental of 1921 by £36,088. Practically the whole of this excess was derived from renewals of leases and in
addition on these renewals in the 10 years capital premiums of about £4,500 were received.

Captain A. RAMSAY: Does not this Paddington area come within the scope of the houses to which the Bishop of London referred as being ghastly?

Mr. DENMAN: No, Sir, not the area from which this increase in revenue comes.

Mr. G. NICHOLSON (for Mr. GOLDIE): 30.
asked the hon. Member for Central Leeds, as representing the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, whether he is aware of the defective condition of, and the overcrowding existing in, the estates controlled by the Commissioners in the borough of Paddington; what steps it is proposed to take to remedy the conditions; and, in particular, what sum it is proposed to expend during the current financial year in alterations and improvements?

Mr. DENMAN: The allegation in this question appears to be that houses in the borough of Paddington under the control of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners are suffering from overcrowding or defective conditions. Far from being aware of this, I invite the hon. Member either to substantiate the allegation or publicly to withdraw it.

Mr. NICHOLSON: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that a statement has been circulated in the London Diocesan Conference on this matter?

Mr. DENMAN: Hon. Members are aware that they are responsible for the allegations which they put into questions, and, if the hon. Member accepted the statements in that document, I am sorry for him, because the document is in several respects grossly misleading.

Mr. HOLFORD KNIGHT: Is it not the case that this area was described some 20 years ago, during the Booth inquiry, as the blackest spot in London; and is it not also the case that the area is occupied by tenants of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners and that the conditions to which attention is called in this question are conditions for which the Eccesiastical Commissioners now retain responsibility?

Mr. DENMAN: The question relates to property controlled by the Commissioners. I believe that there are houses in the area referred to which are overcrowded and which will pass into the control of the Commissioners about the year 3,800; and I can promise my hon. Friend that, if the Government are still in power, they shall be promptly dealt with.

Mr. NICHOLSON: rose
—

Mr. SPEAKER: This is turning into a debate.

Oral Answers to Questions — LEAGUE OF NATIONS (SECRETARY-GENERAL).

Mr. MANDER: 36.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will consider the advisability of proposing, with a view to securing as the next Secretary-General of the League of Nations a citizen of a nation wholly detached from European controversies, that an American should be appointed?

Mr. EDEN: No, Sir.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Mr. LANSBURY: Before asking the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister the question that I intend to ask him, may I, on behalf of myself and my colleagues, offer him our congratulations, and also the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, on their recovery, and express the hope that they will both be able to stand up to it for the future? I wish to ask how far the

right hon. Gentleman expects to go tonight if his Motion is carried.

The PRIME MINISTER: The suspension of the Eleven o'Clock Rule is being moved in order to make certain of obtaining the Third Reading of the Town and Country Planning Bill. The Government would like to obtain the Second Reading of the Patents and Designs Bill [Lords] and the Committee stage of the necessary Money Resolution for that Bill, as well as the Second Reading of the Marriage (Naval, Military and Air Force Chapels) Bill [Lords], but it is not the intention of the Government to keep the House sitting unduly late for the last part of this desire.

Sir AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: Is my right hon. Friend yet in a position to say whether the Government will prorogue or adjourn when this part of this Session comes to an end? It is really becoming very important for some of us to know, who are interested in Bills now before Committee.

The PRIME MINISTER: I sympathise with my right hon. Friend, but I am very sorry that I am somewhat the cause of the delay in answering. I have only got back this morning, but I shall lose no time in putting myself in a position to answer the question.

Motion made, and Question put,
That the Proceedings on Government Business be exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House)."—[The Prime Minister.]

The House divided: Ayes, 298; Noes, 36.

Orders of the Day — TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING BILL

As amended (in the Standing Committee), further considered.

TITLE.

The MINISTER of HEALTH (Sir Hilton Young): I beg to move, in page 1, to leave out the words
and for charging on owners of property expenditure on improvements within areas to which schemes apply.
The omission of these words is consequential upon the decision of the Standing Committee to omit Clause 22, which dealt with expenditure on public improvements in areas to which planning schemes applied. As that Clause has gone, this phrase in the Title goes too.

Amendment agreed to.

Sir H. YOUNG: I beg to move,
That the Bill be re-committed to a Committee of the whole House in respect of the Clause and Amendment standing on the Notice Paper in the name of the Minister of Health and in respect of the Amendments standing on the Notice Paper in the name of the hon. Member for Greenwich and in the name of the hon. Member for the Scottish Universities.
It is my intention to accept the Amendment to this Motion in the name of the right hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Greenwood)—in line 2, to leave out the words "the Clause and Amendment," and to insert instead thereof the words "Clause six and the Clause"—and the Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Southampton (Mr. Craven-Ellis) which will permit of a discussion on recommittal of an Amendment to Clause 26 in the hon. Member's name. I do this without prejudice to the merits of the Amendments which will be moved under the recommittal Motion, but I understand that the acceptance of these Amendments to that Motion is the only way of obtaining a free discussion upon a certain wide principle which the House has expressed a desire to discuss. There is, I believe, only one wide question on the merits of Clause 6 to be discussed, which can no doubt be satisfactorily dealt with on the first Amendment.

Mr. ARTHUR GREENWOOD: I beg to move, in line 2, to leave out the words
"the Clause and Amendment," and to insert instead thereof the words "Clause six and the Clause."
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for indicating that he will accept my Amendment, so that we can have a general discussion on Clause 6. We do not wish to repeat all the arguments and Debates on all the Amendments that were raised in Committee. We are interested primarily in the question of the scope of the Bill. There is another question in regard to procedure which is covered by an Amendment in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Hems-worth (Mr. Price)—in page 5, line 26, after the word "resolution," to insert the words
applying to any land not within the district or, as the case may be, districts aforesaid.

Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question," put, and negatived.

Proposed words there inserted.

Mr. CRAVEN-ELLIS: I beg to move, in line 5, at the end, to add the words:
and in respect of the Amendment to Clause 26 standing on the Notice Paper in the name of the hon. Member for Southampton.
The Amendment to Clause 26 relates to land which is included in the resolution to town plan and is scheduled as an open space. Land which is so scheduled is in an entirely different category from that of any other land which appears within the area of the resolution, and I submit that in this particular case—

Sir AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: Do I understand Mr. Speaker, that you have passed over the Amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member for St. Albans (Sir F. Fremantle) and my name—in line 5, at the end, to insert the words:
and in respect of the Amendments to Clause 6 standing in the name of the hon. Member for St. Albans.
I thought that the Minister of Health indicated that on the recommittal of the Bill it would be a proper occasion to discuss it.

Mr. SPEAKER: That Amendment is covered by the first Amendment to the Motion of the Minister of Health. We have included the whole of Clause 6.

Miss RATHBONE: Would you, Mr. Speaker, kindly explain at what point there will be an opportunity for the wide discussion on the recommittal which we were promised on the Report stage?

Mr. SPEAKER: I do not remember any promise for a wide discussion in Committee except on the actual Amendments which will be moved and which are included in the recommitttal Motion. These are the only subjects that will be open for discussion on the Committee stage.

Miss RATHBONE: The Minister of Health said just now that he accepted the Amendment because it was the only way of giving an opportunity for a wide discussion, but where is the wide discussion to take place? It has already taken place in Standing Committee, and the matter has been carried on further. Is a wide discussion to take place again in the House, and, if so, at what stage?

Mr. SPEAKER: The Bill is to be recommitted in respect of Clause 6 and Amendments to Clause 26. These are the only two subjects on which there will be an opportunity for discussion.

Mr. CRAVEN-ELLIS: I urge that my Amendment should be accepted.

Mr. MICHAEL BEAUMONT: I beg to second the Amendment.

Ordered,
That the Bill be re-committed to a Committee of the whole House in respect of Clause six and the Clause standing on the Notice Paper in the name of the Minister of Health and in respect of the Amendments standing on the Notice Paper in the name of the hon. Member for Greenwich and in the name of the hon. Member for the- Scottish Universities, and in respect of the Amendment to Clause 26 standing on the Notice Paper in the name of the hon. Member for Southampton.

Bill accordingly considered in Committee.

[Captain BOURNE in the Chair.]

CLAUSE 2.—(Local authority for purposes of Act.)

Sir GEORGE HUME: I beg to move, in page 2, line 5, to leave out the words
"the London County Council and," and to insert instead thereof the words:
as respects the City of London, the Common Council of that City, as respects the county of London, the London County Council, and elsewhere.
When this matter was before the Committee an Amendment was put down on behalf of the City of London to provide that the City should have the power to exercise a veto on any town planning scheme made by the London County Council which affected the City area. At that time there had been no opportunity for consultation between the London County Council and the City Corporation, and those of us who are interested in the Clause from the London County Council point of view said that we would not oppose it at that stage, but would reserve our right to raise the question on Report stage, the object being to enable the City Corporation and the London County Council to get into contact. It seemed very undesirable that two such authorities should be at loggerheads over a matter of this kind, which we were quite sure could be arranged in a friendly way. That contact was made. Several suggestions were made to the City Corporation,, and finally we came to an agreement by which the City Corporation should be its own town planning authority as regards the City area and the London County Council the authority for the rest of the county. Our objection to the City Corporation having a veto is that it would be inconvenient that one local authority should be vetoing another. An immense amount of work has to be done in preparing a town planning scheme, and for one authority to come in afterwards and possibly upset everything would cause great inconvenience and cost. It is better that each should be responsible for its own area, and if that were so I am certain that two bodies like the City Corporation and the London County Council would certainly get into contact at the very earliest stage, in order to put their heads together to see that their arrangements did not clash and that they were working together for the benefit of the whole area. The agreement come to provided, putting it broadly, that the City Corporation was to be the town planning authority for its own area; and then there were these qualifications:

(1) That the expenditure of the London County Council as town planning authority should continue to be treated as a general county charge.
(2) That where a scheme made by the City Corporation is consequential upon and forms a necessary part of a general scheme made by the London County Council the cost of the whole scheme, including so much thereof as affects the City Corporation, should be borne rateably by the administrative county as a whole; subject to any question of difference arising between the Corporation and the Council as to whether or not a scheme made by the Corporation is reasonably consequential upon and forms a necessary part of a general scheme made by the Council being referred to a determination by the Minister.
(3) That arrangements with regard to schemes affecting both the Council and the City Corporation and complementary to one another shall be discussed and worked out in detail before final schemes are formulated.

This creates no new precedent, because the City already is an authority on its own in connection with housing schemes, for example, and so on; and I venture to think we are fortunate indeed to have the representatives of the City combining with those who are interested in the London County Council to bring this arrangement before the Committee and I hope it will be agreed to.

Sir PERCY HARRIS: I do not want to make any difficulties, because I know how jealous the City of London is about its ancient privileges, how very sensitive it is about the new body, the County Council, butting in or interfering in the City area, but I do not think the hon. Member for Greenwich (Sir G. Hume) is quite right in his precedents. After all, the proper precedent is the London Building Act, which applies right throughout the county area. Before I agree to come into this arrangement I would like to be satisfied, and I think the Committee are entitled to be satisfied, about the distribution of the financial burden. The City has within it the highest assessable value in the whole of London, and surely it is proper that the City should pay its scot and lot of any expenditure that arises out of the administration of this Act. The hon. Member for Greenwich was not quite fair. He read his memorandum—I suppose that in a matter of such high policy he felt he ought to stick to the bare written word, and would not venture into the ordinary spoken word, in which region he is exceptionally clear. Suppose an improvement carried
out under the Town Planning Act involves the London County Council in expenditure for Greenwich, to take a practical example.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMN: I must point out to the Committee that, if this Amendment is carried, there will be a consequential Amendment to Clause 44 dealing with the apportionment of expenses as between the Common Council of the City of London and the London County Council. If it is for the convenience of the Committee to have a general discussion now on the question whether the Common Council of the City of London should or should not be a town planning authority, and, consequently, how expenses fall to be borne by it, I have no objection to that course; but, if this matter is discussed now, it cannot be discussed again on Clause 44.

Sir H. YOUNG: The suggestion you have made, Captain Bourne, seems to me to be an extremely wise one. All these matters are closely linked together, and may be disposed of in one discussion.

4.0 p.m.

Sir P. HARRIS: I will undertake not to repeat my arguments on the subsequent Amendment. I was putting a practical example to the hon. Member for Greenwich. Suppose there is a town-planning scheme in Greenwich and that involves expenditure. Will the City of London, with the rest of London—Whitechapel, Hammersmith, Hampstead and all the other boroughs—bear its share of the cost of that town-planning scheme? If not, is it a bad bargain for the rest of London; because the probability of a town-planning scheme inside the City area is almost remote? The City is already built up, and I cannot imagine any expensive town-planning scheme inside the City walls. If I am correct, then the City of London is making a very good bargain for the ratepayers and owners of property in the City of London, and may be making a very bad bargain for all the poor boroughs round about the City who will equally not have town planning schemes applying to them, but will have to bear the cost of a town planning scheme for places like Greenwich, Woolwich and other places on the outskirts of London likely to be town planned. I am all in favour of doing abeyance to the privileges of the City of
London on one condition, that it is not at the cost of the rest of the ratepayers of London. I do not want to interfere with those rights, which date back centuries, but I do object if the rest of London has to pay extra rates in order to protect those rights. I think that the hon. Member for Greenwich ought to make it clear that this bargain is not going to cost the rest of London a heavy toll on its rates.

Sir G. HUME: I thought that in reading out the agreement which has been come to, the matter was clear. I take it the position is, that if the City, as the town planning authority, on its own initiative plans a City area not affecting the general county, the City bears the expense. Where the expenditure is that of the London County Council as the town planning authority—take the case of Greenwich—that would be treated as a general county charge. Where a scheme made by the City Corporation is consequential upon, and forms a necessary part of a general scheme made by the London County Council, the cost of the whole scheme, including so much of it as affects the City Corporation, will be borne rate-ably by the administrative county as a whole, subject to any question of difference arising as to whether it is consequential or not.

Sir H. YOUNG: The House may expect a word from me on this important Amendment. I think it need only be in the way of congratulation both to the County Council and to the Corporation for the wisdom and mutual forbearance which they have shown in arriving at an arrangement which, I am sure, will commend itself to the Committee as a wise arrangement. We may congratulate ourselves also upon being relieved of the painful necessity of acting as arbiter between the two authorities.

Amendment agreed to.

CLAUSE 6.—(Preparation or adoption of schemes.)

The following Amendments stood upon the Order Paper:

In page 5, line 26, to leave out Subsection (2).—[Mr. Greenwood.]

After the word "resolution," to insert the words:
applying to any land not within the district or, as the case may be, districts aforesaid."—[Mr. Price.]

In line 35, after the word "expedient," to insert the words:
or that there is danger that gradual changes may take place in the use of the_ land within the area of the scheme or in the character of any buildings thereon of such nature and to such extent as would in the course of time be liable to prejudice existing property or its amenities or satisfactory redevelopment of the land.

In line 40, to leave out paragraph (b).

In page 6, line 6, at the end, to insert the words:
or that there is danger that from time to time the erection of buildings or change in use of existing buildings may take place to such an extent as would be liable to injure rural amenities."—[Sir F. Fremantle.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: Before I call on the right hon. Member for Wake-field (Mr. Greenwood) to move his Amendment, I would refer to the Amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member for Hemsworth (Mr. Price) and: to the three Amendments standing in the name of the hon. Member for St. Albans (Sir F. Fremantle). They all raise the question of built-up areas under Subsection (2). I think it might be convenient to the Committee if we had a general Debate on the first Amendment in the name of the right hon. Gentleman on the whole principle of the Sub-section, reserving the right of hon. Members to move and divide on their Amendments if they wish to do so subsequently.

Mr. GREENWOOD: I beg to move, in page 5, line 26, to leave out Sub-section (2).
I am sure that your suggestion, Captain Bourne, will meet with the approval of the Committee. I move to leave out Sub-section (2) because since the Bill left the House after its Second Reading, what many people regard as a very substantial change has been made in the Bill. Clause 6 as it now appears before the Committee is different from Clause 6 as it left the House on Second Reading. It has, in fact, been restricted in its scope. That I regard as being a most serious Amendment to the Bill, and it is right that before we pass from this subject the Committee should either reaffirm its old decision, or quite openly and de-
liberately scrap its old decision and endorse the change which was made in Committee upstairs. The Bill of 1931 empowered, under conditions laid down, the planning of all land, both built-up areas and undeveloped land not covered by previous legislation. That Bill, as many hon. Members will remember, got an unopposed Second Reading, and, so far as the scope of the Bill was concerned, it emerged from the Committee unimpaired. Had it been possible to bring the Bill back on the Report stage to that House of Commons, I have not the slightest doubt myself that the House would have re-affirmed its decision to include all land within the scope of town planning schemes. I say that in the presence of the present Postmaster-General, who, with his accustomed modesty, is sitting far below the Gangway, and who knows that that would have been the case. And that was so, I suppose, because in nearly a score of cases Parliament, in local Acts, has given local authorities powers which imposed no limitation whatever on the kind of land which they should be allowed to plan.
The present Bill is substantially the Bill as it was left by the Labour Government with the Amendments which were made in Committee. It arrived in this House as a legacy from the late Parliament as a Bill which was an agreed Bill. I wish the Postmaster-General would come a little further into the House, because he could bear me out. For the second time, the principles were accepted. There was no Division. It is true that on the Second Reading sparrows twittered. But they had not the courage to challenge a Division. The general sense of the House was in favour of the principle of the Bill, and the major principle of the Bill was that town planning should now be able to cover all land, irrespective of whether it was developed or not built-upon. Unfortunately, as has been observed by a body which is interested in this question—the National Housing and Town Planning Council—what it calls "a strong and well-organised opposition to its main principles" manifested itself at an early stage in Standing Committee. Certain Members of the Committee prominently occupying the third bench above the Gangway were Members of the Committee last year. If they were not
restrained then, they were at least overwhelmed and out-voted by the votes of their more enlightened colleagues in the Conservative party some of whom are now in the House, including, as I must remark again, the Postmaster-General himself. Not being satisfied, they have, quite rightly, returned to the charge, and deliberately sought to restrict the scope of the Bill.
I would point out to the Committee that, prior to the introduction of the original Bill, there had been prolonged consultations with practically every kind of organisation and every kind of interests affected by it, not merely the local authorities, but bodies representing the landowners and the land agents, bodies interested in town planning and professional organisations. It may be that there was not absolutely universal agreement, but at least there was among all those varied interests who were concerned, general agreement as regards the scope which town and country planning should in future take, and the views of those people have not altered. Hon. Members who have been responsible for this very substantial change in the Bill have no real representative capacity in this matter. I thought, perhaps, that they might be speaking for certain landed interests, but I find that when the Minister three months ago received a. deputation on this question, neither the Land Agents' Society nor the Central Landowners' Association, who represent a considerable majority of landowners, had suggested any alteration to Clause 6 to curtail the scope of planning.
It is clear, therefore, that recalcitrant supporters of the National Government cannot claim to represent the organised landed interests of this country, and, even more so, they cannot claim to represent the views of local authorities and regional and town planning authorities in this country. It is equally certain that they cannot claim to represent the views of bodies like the Royal Institute of British Architects, the Council for the Preservation of Rural England and other bodies of that kind which have done so much to promote a healthy interest in this subject. Indeed, they speak only for themselves. At the best, they speak for a little knot of Diehard Tories. They can claim no authority from their own party. They can claim no authority from
the Liberal party. They can claim no authority from any group represented in the National Government.

Sir FRANCIS FREMANTLE: As a matter of accuracy, may I point out that the hon. Member for West Derbyshire (Marquess of Hartington) represents the Diehard Whigs—not Tories.

Mr. GREENWOOD: I believe that is a distinction that we may have to re-introduce into the currency of politics to-day, but we do not want to quarrel about terms. Let us call it a Diehard group. They do represent a Diehard group, not representative of the general body of Conservative opinion.

Sir HENRY CAUTLEY: The right hon. Gentleman might tell us whom he represents.

Mr. GREENWOOD: On this matter, I happen to represent enlightened public opinion. I have already explained to the hon. and learned Member that outside this House there are local authorities who, without exception, support the Bill as introduced. Every professional organisation, every propagandist organisation interested in this matter, the Central Landowners' Association, and the land agents have not asked for this Amendment. I have a right to say that I do represent enlightened public opinion in this matter. I should be sorry to pretend to represent that little group of Diehards who have forced their will upon the Minister. The Minister has had time to reflect about this matter. He introduced the Bill so that it should apply to all land, but he had to capitulate to this little group of backwoodsmen who represent nobody but themselves.

Marquess of HARTINGTON: On a point of Order, is an hon. Member entitled to suggest that any hon. Member represents anyone except his own constituents?

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I understood the right hon. Member to say that certain hon. Members represented no interest whatever. It is better not to make suggestions of that kind, but at any rate they do not contravene the Rules of the House.

Mr. GREENWOOD: I think I was careful to say, "representing the views." If
the Noble Lord had listened carefully he would know that I said that it is unfortunate that the Minister should have made this concession and capitulated on this Bill to the little group who were slapped very hard by their own leaders in the House of Commons last year. What has happened in fact is that this Bill has been butchered to make a holiday for the Diehard Tories. [Interruption.] Their hostility is to the whole principle of town planning. They have sought to wound the Bill in its most vital part; indeed, the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. M. Beaumont), who showed great courage in speaking on a Scottish Amendment that the Bill should be confined to England and should not apply to Scotland, expressed the view that he would prefer the Bill—not merely a little bit of the Bill, but the Bill—to be confined to Scotland, because he said he hated the principle of the Bill. That is the motive.

Mr. M. BEAUMONT: I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman does not wish to misrepresent me. All I did was to applaud the admirable suggestion made by the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland to leave England out of the Bill.

Mr. GREENWOOD: That is so. That was hailed with great enthusiasm. That simply makes my point.

Mr. BEAUMONT: I am not disputing the point.

Mr. GREENWOOD: I do not want to misrepresent the hon. Gentleman. It is true that he said he hated the principle of the Bill. This is the kind of levity with which this serious subject has been treated. The Noble Lord in Standing Committee moved an Amendment, I thought rather unnecessarily, to leave out "April 1st" and to insert All Fools' Day." [Interruption.] He was so proud of this that he had to bring it into the discussion last night. The hon. Member for Aylesbury had an Amendment at an earlier stage to change the date of the operation of the Bill, and he said that he believed that if the Minister had been able to accept it it would have done the one thing that he wanted to do, and which he had in mind, that is restore some of the old England of the past.
I could not help thinking and feeling at the time that it was a most appro-
priate Amendment to come from a Member of the Diehard group. They have come back to the House on the Report stage and tried on the old game. The House has turned them down time and time again. Yesterday, I tried to help them, but they were defeated. They have not got a single further concession. The House is against them. Why? Because they know that hon. Members who are responsible for curtailing the powers in the Bill dislike the whole of the Bill, lock, stock and barrel, and it is very unfortunate that the right hon. Gentleman should have given way to them so early as he did. If the Minister believed that the Bill, as introduced, was right, then he ought to have stuck to his guns, and I am satisfied that the House of Commons would have supported him. If he believes that he made a mistake, then I suggest that he ought not to have introduced the Bill until he had made up his mind as to what he was going to stand by when it came to a fight. There is no doubt that the Minister's concession has been received by that interested section of the public with nothing short of consternation. Hon. Members will be aware of the conference, which Was very hastily called by the National Housing and Town Planning Council because of what had happened in Standing Committee. The Resolution showed how deeply disturbed they were because of the curtailment that had taken place in the powers given under the Bill. Their view was expressed thus:
The conference, after careful consideration of the whole situation, records the opinion that the Amendment made in Clause 6 of the Bill will seriously prejudice, and in many cases render impossible, the effective replanning of built-up areas, and the preservation of amenities in rural areas,
and the resolution goes on to ask that the Government shall bring back the purpose of the Bill to its original intention. That is the view expressed at a very large conference of local authorities and other representative bodies, by people who thought that a serious disservice had been done by the Minister's capitulation to the little knot of gentlemen who now decorate the third bench above the Gangway. [Interruption.] The word "decorate" has more than one implication. I think it is right to say that instructed opinion has developed even more strongly as the time
has gone by. It is of little use for the Minister to say that this does not damage the Bill, and does not hurt the prospects of town planning, because everybody else who understands the question is satisfied that it does. I cannot see him in the line of prophets who stand against the world as one who is right when everybody else is wrong. I must regard with seriousness the views of our great local authorities and of bodies who have made town and country planning their special province. It may be that the local authorities are primarily concerned with their own areas, and not specially with rural areas, but from inquiries I have made it is clear that those who understand the application of town and country planning to the rural areas believe that the effect of the restrictions will be to leave large areas of ordinary agricultural land outside the scheme. I have no doubt that many hon. Members have read the statement of one who was for a long time a Member of this House—Sir Leslie Scott—on that side of the question, and I would commend to hon. Members a very powerful plea made by Lord Phillimore at the Bonar Law College, Ashridge, which must be a highly respectable place, when he spoke on "Agriculture and the Preservation of the Countryside." He asked whether the Amendment, which was the chief Amendment on Clause 6, has been helpful or the reverse to agriculture, and he went on to say:
It is an argument of Sir Henry Cautley and those who are acting with him "—
[Interruption.] I am sorry the hon. and learned Member is not with his colleagues on the other side.

Sir H. CAUTLEY: I think the right hon. Member ought to explain what he means by "acting."

Mr. GREENWOOD: My consideration of the Reports of the Standing Committee seem to show that their hearts beat as one. I believe there is a certain community of interest between the hon. and learned Member for East Grinstead (Sir H. Cautley) and the people who decorate the third bench above the Gangway. To resume my quotation from Lord Phillimore's speech:
It is an argument of Sir Henry Cautley, and those who are acting with him that it was not necessary to subject those areas to the restriction where there was no chance of development taking place.
Then Lord Phillimore goes on:
Well, of course, this leaves a good deal of latitude for the Minister—too much I think. How is the poor man "—
[Interruption.] I hope the Minister will not mind, because I am simply quoting from Lord Phillimore—
How is the poor man to know where development is likely to take place? If I knew that, I should make a lot of money. I don't think I know any district in the Southern half of England where development is positively not going to take place. In most cases it depends upon who, for pecuniary or other reasons, is forced to sell his land. It depends, too, on how much the market for land is already glutted within that particular area.
4.30 p.m.
He goes on and makes a very strong plea for the consideration of the Bill as it stood before in the interests of agriculture and the countryside, as indeed, one of the means of really saving the countryside. In view of the arguments which have been adduced by supporters of the Bill, and by people who are interested in this problem and stand outside all political parties, I hope that the House will come back to its original position, one which was affirmed last year and reaffirmed this year and one which was on previous occasions affirmed by the representatives of local areas. It is clear that planning ought to precede development. It ought not to follow on the heels of development; it ought not to scramble hurriedly immediately in front of it, because that means bad planning, and that means that neither local authorities nor individual landholders can look ahead. If planning means anything at all, it means looking as far ahead as you reasonably can and making your plan, and, as time goes on and circumstances change, altering the scheme within the general framework. Long-distance planning, I believe, is a wise policy. Long-distance planning has been crippled by the Amendment accepted by the Minister. I sympathise with his difficulties on the Standing Committee. I can understand how hon. Members on the Front Bench opposite, soaked as they were in 23 days of discussion last year, came armed to the teeth with all their arguments against the Bill. They had, in a way, a start of the Minister, which was a little unfortunate; but I should hope that the Minister will be prepared on this
question to take the free unfettered view of this Committee here. [Interruption.] If there were a free and unfettered vote, I am quite satisfied as to what the result would be. If Members of the House of Commons representing a National Government really want to express here a national point of view on a particular problem, they have an opportunity of doing so now, when everybody outside is united—[Interruption.] I am not speaking of the ignoramuses and people who are not interested; I am speaking, as I have said, of bodies who can claim to be regarded with respect. [Interruption.] Hon. Members may, if they like, be contemptuous of local authorities; I am not. These great bodies who have been doing this work have a right to be considered; people and organisations whose energies are directed to this problem, and who understand it and its implications, have a right to be heard; and I say that, if the House wishes to express national instructed opinion to-day, it will agree to the deletion of this Sub-section and allow the Bill to stand as it was originally introduced.

Sir F. FREMANTLE: I wish to support this Amendment from an angle rather different from that of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wake-field (Mr. Greenwood). In fact, before this Amendment was put down by him, I put it down independently, and, if I had seen that his name was attached to it, I am not quite sure that I should have added my own, because, unfortunately, the angle from which he has approached it—quite rightly from his point of view—raises party feeling, and takes the question away from the really businesslike point of view. I speak for those who who have wished to support the Minister in his Bill all the way through, and who, I must point out to the Committee, were in a position of peculiar difficulty in putting their case, because certain of my hon. and Noble Friends organised a very strong opposition to the Bill, saying in most cases, although with some variations, that they would oppose the Bill root and branch. As they were thus organised, and very well instructed by the Property Owners' Association, whom they represent more especially, it was up to the Minister and, I think, five other Government Ministers who supported him in the Committee, to defend their Bill. Obviously, therefore, the less that was
said by those who supported the Bill the better, but many of my hon. Friends, who were as keen as anyone could be on promoting town planning, and especially those who were new Members of the House, were boiling with rage at the fact that again and again speeches were delivered by my hon. and Noble Friends who were opposed to the Bill, and the others stood no chance; and then it was thrown in their teeth that no one had spoken for the Bill. My Noble Friend the Member for West Derbyshire (Marquess of Hartington) did an ignoble thing last night when he said that no one had spoken for the Measure on Report. He knows perfectly well that the job of those who are supporting Ministers is to keep quiet and vote straight.
I hope that the House, now in Committee here, will look upon the matter from a fresh and detached point of view. It is true that the whole question of town planning is at stake in this Measure, and I say without hesitation that all who have studied and have had great experience with measures of town planning, whether they be voluntary societies or local authorities, unanimously support this Bill as it was originally introduced, and almost unanimously regret the introduction of this Sub-section. They regret the influence that the Property Owners' Association and their representatives have had on this Bill, and they support the deletion of this Sub-section in order to get back to the position as it was before the Bill left the House and went to the Committee. I am asked by the Association of Municipal Corporations particularly to bring forward two further Amendments which I have put down later on the Paper. The Association, although they would wish the Bill to be restored absolutely, without Sub-section (2) of Clause 6, feel that, if the Minister will not grant that concession, they would at least like to see included, definitely and in words, provision for the possibility of gradual changes which may be overlooked as the Sub-section stands at the moment. Therefore, I have put down an Amendment providing for the inclusion of such gradual changes in town planning schemes. Do any of my hon. and Noble Friends who are opposed to the Bill or to this Amendment dare stand up to the association which represents the municipal corporations whom they represent, and say that it is wrong?

Mr. M. BEAUMONT: Yes, certainly.

Sir F. FREMANTLE: My hon. Friend does not represent one of the municipal corporations. I am speaking for the municipal corporations, who apply large minds to this subject, who have officials who are able to give their minds to it, and a large number of councillors and aldermen who have given voluntary service and who include many persons of the highest possible intelligence, even as high as that of my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr. M. Beaumont). I say without hesitation that, if my hon. Friend and others who are opposed to my Amendment were to meet them face to face, they would not be able in fair debate to hold their own with those who represent the municipal corporations. The municipal corporations are opposed to the inclusion of this Sub-section because they know that they must have every possible power to deal with an evil that is growing. This question of town planning is not simply one of artistic merit. We are dealing with a matter which is developing every day, and in connection with which mischief is being done every day. Those who raised last night the question of economy, striking a sympathetic chord in every one of our breasts, did so without realising what they are really up against. The object of this Measure is that there may be control, reorganisation, and, as the Minister said yesterday, foresight.
I have no particular means of estimating the value of the work that is being done, even in a year like this, on developing, building, Toad making, and laying out in one way or another, but I suppose it would be generally agreed that it would not be excessive to say that probably £10,000,000 a year is being spent throughout the country on this business of developing. I suppose everyone knows of cases in which buildings that have been up only 10, or 20, or 50 years are being pulled down by pickaxe and hammer because they stand in the way of development. It is pitiful to see some of these houses which have been built even since the War being pulled down because they are in the way of some other form of development. How are we to stop this waste which is going on in. front of our very eyes? Surely, the way is to have a plan. Everybody knows that a plan is necessary, and everyone knows
that a plan requires a certain amount of work and that that work must be paid for. Last night my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury said that he knew of one plan which had cost as much as £2,000, and he considered that this whole Measure would cost as much as £100,000 a year. Given that maximum estimate of £100,000 a year—

Mr. M. BEAUMONT: Minimum estimate.

Sir F. FREMANTLE: Maximum estimate as he gave it yesterday. He did not give it as either a minimum or a maximum, but I have not the least doubt that he put it as a maximum.

Mr. BEAUMONT: I know that my hon. and gallant Friend does not want to misrepresent me. If he will refer to the OFFICIAL REPORT, he will see that I was putting £100,000 as the lowest possible figure, and I said that it would probably be 10 times that amount.

Sir F. FREMANTLE: I am sorry that my hon. Friend has made such a bad amendment of his original suggestion. If he reads his own words, he will find that his original estimate was probably the more accurate one. Assuming that the expenditure is £100,000 a year on a business involving £10,000,000 a year, who will say that that is excessive for what is called rationalisation or bringing up to date? I am not going to enlarge on that subject, because everyone recognises the necessity for town planning. That being the case, we come to this particular point in the Amendment, and I want to quote the Minister of Health himself. The Minister said in Committee that the Amendment which is now incorporated in the Bill would exclude static lands, and that the effect of the second part would be the same with regard to rural land—it would exclude the merely static areas. I say that there are no static areas in this country at the present time. It depends upon what you call static areas, but I want the Committee to understand that in this matter of building and developing the country, especially on the wider basis of the road motor services which are now available, we are rapidly developing, and, in doing so, we are playing with fire. I will give figures relating to one or two cases.
Take, for instance, the case of Ken Wood. Who does not know that magnificent possession on the heights of Hampstead, acquired for the public with infinite trouble and at enormous expense only a few years ago? Probably 100 years ago no one would have thought that any necessity for town planning would arise there, and under Sub-section (2) of Clause 6 as it now figures in the Bill there would be no chance of its being carried out. I suppose that then the land was worth, perhaps, about £50 an acre. What was the price that it fetched owing to the fact that there had been no town planning? When it eventually became public property, the public had to pay for it, if I remember aright, something like £1,000 an acre. That process is going on all the time.
Another case is that of Welwyn Garden City. That was designed as an experimental example, to be copied in part or in whole, as might be required, by other developers. That area was bought at about £40 an acre 12 years ago. The cost of development has varied according to the situation, but it may be put roughly at from £600 to £700 per acre for roads, sewers and other services over the estate, so that an area costing £40 an acre is now worth about £650 an acre. In the central part of the town, however, the value goes up enormously. There, next to the station, which was only opened five years ago by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, is what is becoming a street, and places have been taken by three banks. For the last of them, the independent valuation of the district valuer, agreed to by the banks, works out at no less than an average of £32,000 an acre. There, in 10 years, you have land going up from £40 to £32,000 an acre in value. Who shall say that that is static? But it might have been considered static if the Bill were passed in its present form. That development is going on the whole time, and one cannot afford to delay. I should like to quote from one who was then one of the Members for Birmingham and was Chairman of the committee on slum areas. He afterwards became Minister of Health and is-now Chancellor of the Exchequer. This is what he said in 1927, addressing a meeting of the Manchester and District Joint Town Planning Advisory Committee:
On the basis on which we are working now, it is not safe to leave any corner of
old England unplanned, however remote it may seem to be from development to-day, and we shall not be content until every square inch of the country, from Land's End to John o' Groat's, is the subject of a town plan of some kind.
He went further and said:
You are preaching to the converted. Very early in one of my town-planning schemes in Birmingham I had to deal with an area the greater part of which was undeveloped but which contained certain spots already built over, and I was harassed and exasperated at finding that those built-up spots could not be included in the town plan.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir MERVYN MAN-NINGHAM-BULLER: Surely that would be included in the Bill without accepting the Amendment?

Sir F. FREMANTLE: "Every corner from Land's End to John o'Groats." My hon. and gallant Friend has forgotten that.

Sir M. MANNINGHAM-BULLER: That is not the point that I was dealing with. I was dealing with the last example that my hon. Friend gave of a town where development is hampered owing to the fact that there were a few old existing buildings there.

Sir F. FREMANTLE: I am glad my hon. and gallant Friend has raised the question, because I do not want to deceive the Committee. One does not want to exaggerate the case. There are many cases where this kind of development is likely to take place, and therefore they will come under this Bill. I have a large number. If only this were a lecture, one could give instances with photographs, but, despite the entreaties of my hon. and gallant Friend, I will not do so. It is clear that there are instances over and over again to which the Bill, under this Sub-section, would not apply. I shall be glad if the Minister will reassure me on this point. Take an ordinary residential area consisting of suburban houses with nice little gardens, built perhaps 40 or 50 years ago. It is quiet, with no traffic going through it and no commercial development of any kind, lying in what used to be the outskirts of a town which are now incorporated in the town. Would that be considered ripe for development? If it is, what is the good of the limitation? Surely that, above all things, will be considered likely to be developed in the near future—to use the actual words:
or other development is likely to take place within such a period of time and on such a scale as to make the inclusion of the land in a scheme expedient.

Sir M. MANNINGHAM-BULLER: The Clause that my hon. Friend has read deals with rural areas. The point that he was discussing is a residential area in town.

Sir F. FREMANTLE: The actual wording is:
in the case of land which is neither already built upon nor in course of development nor likely to be developed.
That deals with rural areas. What I quoted, paragraph (a) of Sub-section (2), deals with urban areas. I have here a case in which, a stable having been given up, it was started as a petrol garage, which may not be hideous, but which in this case involved intense trouble to the neighbouring residents, and two of the houses alongside it became vacant in consequence. I will only give another instance. The making of an arterial road knocked off a corner, and, as a result, a small shop which had been established between two residential houses became a corner shop. There is a case where there was no idea of an area being marked for development, and yet almost at once it became a busy corner, and the result was that several houses close by are now vacant and have gone down in price. With the present rapidity of development, you can never know what is going to be developed and what is not, at least in a town area.
The only way in which you can really plan properly is to plan for a whole town. Of course, you will not plan in detail for the whole town. You will naturally only plan in outline and fill in your outline as and when required. But you want to have a grip over the whole area, and then you can deal with it as and when required. I am afraid, if the Sub-section remains, you will still have development going on in certain areas, and there will come trouble, and, what is more abiding, trouble which you cannot overtake, especially if it takes the form of reinforced concrete and large buildings which cannot be dealt with by a subsequent scheme. May I take an analogy from Army manoeuvres? I was often struck in the old days by the fact that
various neighbourhoods had to be removed from the area of manoeuvres because, perhaps, there were woodlands which the owners did not want the troops to go through, and it spoilt the whole idea. My hon. and gallant Friend would realise the impossibility of waging war if there were a bit taken off here and a bit taken off there and yet he had to go on with his plan of campaign. It is the same with town planning. We are face to face with what may be an enemy. It is a constant force manifesting itself in intense development, in which immense loss is going to take place to industry generally as well as to amenities, both in the towns and in the country, unless we have the power to plan. I want the Minister to be given power to allow these things to be included. He will knock them out if they are irrelevant. He will remove certain parts which are unnecessary, but I want him to have a free hand. Unless you are unrestricted in covering the whole ground, your scheme is bound to fall short of requirements. From all these points of view, I hope we shall get the unimpeded possibilities of the Bill as it left the House on Second Reading.

Mr. CRAVEN-ELLIS: Had I not read this Clause and the Bill, I should probably have come to the conclusion, after hearing the speeches of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Greenwood) and my hon. Friend the Member for St. Albans (Sir F. Fremantle) that Clause 6 (2) was intended to prevent town planning. The Clause in no way interferes with town planning. It is only intended to give safeguards to the community as a whole, and, in particular, to the owners of property. I make no apology to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wakefield because I am responsible for the Amendment which has produced this new Clause. I am as anxious as he is for town planning. I was determined, when I went to the Standing Committee, to do what I could to make a bad Socialist Bill into a workable Measure, and I think, with the assistance of the Committee and with the very close co-operation and assistance of the Minister of Health, the Bill now gives local authorities opportunities of planning in a better way than the 1925 Act did.
It is improper to refer to my colleagues on the Front Bench and myself as representing any particular organisation. I represent no organisation. I have never been in communication with any organisation. My Amendment was put on the Order Paper simply based on the experience that I have had of town planning. Having been in contact with local authorities who were not fully acquainted with the conditions required under the Town Planning Act of 1925, which has created many hardships for property owners and liabilities for ratepayers, I intended to do my best to provide safeguards for the parties concerned. After all, Clause 2 says a local authority shall not have its resolution approved until it has bad the confirmation of the Ministry of Health. That is confined to two particular groups of property, to built-up areas, which are now included in town planning, and rural areas. There is nothing to prevent either of these categories of property being developed. As far as I have been able to judge, there has not been put forward by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wakefield or by the hon. Member for St. Albans a single objection of a tangible nature which would justify the deletion of this new Clause. We have had a. tremendous lot said about town planning but nothing has been said upon this Subsection. The Committee would be very ill-advised to be influenced by the arguments put forward by these two Members. In the interests of town planning, which is most essential from Land's End to John o' Groats, I suggest that they give the Minister their support on this Sub-section.

5.0 p.m.

Mr. PRICE: I support the Amendment and trust that the Minister will give serious consideration to the obstacles which will be put in the way of efficient town planning if the Bill passes in its present form. I am very pleased that the hon. Member for St. Albans (Sir F. Fremantle) has informed us as to whom our hon. Friends on the third Government bench above the Gangway were representing in Standing Committee A. As a Member of that Committee, it was pretty evident to me in the very early stages of our deliberations.

Mr. M. BEAUMONT: Is it in order for the hon. Member to suggest that my
hon. Friends and I represent any particular body? I represent no one but my own opinion and the opinion of common sense outside.

Mr. PRICE: I do not think that any hon. Member in this House can say that I have attributed the representation of any particular section to the hon. Members opposite. I had not got to that stage. I was thanking the hon. Member for St. Albans who has told us whom they represent. For once I have backed a winner. He told us that they represent the owners.

Marquess of HARTINGTON: The hon. Member has quoted my hon. Friend the Member for St. Albans (Sir F. Fremantle) and may I say, on behalf of myself and those hon. Members with whom I am acting, that we do not represent any particular association. I did not wish to interrupt my hon. Friend the Member for St. Albans, but I now say that it was absolutely without foundation to say that I had any connection with the Property Owners' Association, and the hon. Gentleman opposite is not justified in quoting it.

Mr. PRICE: The hon. Gentleman informed us that it was so, and, if he was wrong, it does not remove the fact that the views of the hon. Gentlemen which were put forward in Standing Committee certainly led me to think that it was so. But I will accept what the hon. Member says. I think that any hon. Member of the Committee who has taken part in town planning under the old Acts of Parliament will agree that if the Bill is allowed to go through with Sub-section (2) still included it will take away the opportunity of having town and country planning dealt with efficiently, and 20 or 30 years from now there will be the same difficult circumstances as those which have faced us when we have endeavoured to deal with town planning in the past. If the Amendment is accepted—and it ought to be—we shall have a Bill which will give for the first time greater power to the linking up of a large number of authorities, including the county councils, for town and country planning. If the Sub-section is withdrawn there will be nothing remaining in the Bill but what gives the fair crack of the whip to every property owner in connection with every scheme which may come for-
ward. The owners of property and land are pretty well safeguarded in the Bill, but if the Sub-section is allowed to remain we shall fail to link up the future life of this country upon lines which are very essential in the planning of the town and countryside.
The position of agriculture has been dealt with in the House in several Debates during the present Parliament. Is there any Member who can suggest that in dealing with future town and country planning large communities should not be linked up with the agricultural districts surrounding them? Agriculture has suffered owing to the fact that there has been no connecting link in town and country planning between large industrial centres and agricultural areas. Difficulties have arisen in transportation and the marketing of produce because there has been no co-ordination between the large centralised authorities and communities and the agricultural districts. We have reached a stage when we understand that agriculture is to be encouraged in this country to go further than it has ever gone before. It is to cultivate more and bring into the industrial districts fresh butter, cheese, bacon and all that kind of thing, and it is to establish bacon factories and develop sugar-beet factories. Therefore, I suggest to hon. Members who represent rural districts that in the formulation of a Town and Country Planning Bill, which has a view to the future, the best thing that can happen is to have all classes of land, both built-up areas and agricultural land, inside a large town and country planning scheme. If that takes place, there will be nothing which will rob the landlord or the property owner in any shape or form. I trust that the Committee will agree to consider the question very seriously and will enable the Bill to be presented for the Third Reading, as far as this particular part of it is concerned, as it was when it came to the Committee. Many of us have suffered tremendously owing to the lack of decent town planning in the past when our colliery villages were built round colliery muckstacks, and all that kind of thing. The Bill makes legitimate provision for compensation and claims by owners, and the House at this time of the day ought to take a wider outlook and give the town-planning authorities of the country a reasonable opportunity
to plan the country on healthy, efficient, commercial and businesslike lines.

Mr. RHYS: In listening to the speeches delivered by hon. Members who are supporting the change proposed in the Measure, the impression might easily be gained that no thought of town planning would take place under the Bill as it now stands. If hon. Members will take the trouble to read the Bill they will find that such is not the case. The hon. Member for St. Albans (Sir F. Fremantle), who has just left the Chamber, made an interesting and weighty speech, but it seemed to me that every word of it was covered by the Bill as it is now drawn. He drew a heart-rending picture of the development taking place before our eyes. If that were the case, it would most certainly be included under the Bill as it is now drawn. He and his colleagues complain that certain restrictions have been placed upon the planning of the countryside. If the Bill is carefully read, it will be found that there is still provision for every single local authority from Land's End to John o'Groats to pass a resolution to town plan their area. The only restriction put upon them is that the Minister shall not give his consent to such a resolution if it appears to him to be unnecessary. It is a very moderate restriction in view of the present necessity for economy. There are many areas already freshly built up in which there can be no possible reconstruction for many years to come, and it can be nothing but a waste of time and public money to make those areas subject to a town-planning scheme with all the inquiries which have to take place. There are vast areas in the North of Scotland which are nothing but mountain, heath and moorland. Under the Bill as it was originally drawn, they would practically have to be subject to a town-planning scheme when there was not the smallest danger of those areas being covered with buildings.

Mr. PRICE: No, that is not true.

Mr. RHYS: The hon. Gentleman can put his case afterwards if he can catch the eye of the Chairman, and perhaps he will allow me to make my speech in the way I desire. There are many areas in the country districts of England in which
there can still be no danger. The hon. Member for St. Albans gave away the whole of his case in the concluding sentences of his speech. He said that if we will only put the original Clause back into the Bill we can rely upon the Minister to cut out all unnecessary frills. That is exactly what we have done. As I have pointed out, every authority can pass a resolution and if it is in the least necessary the Minister can authorise it. If we take this matter on a common sense and calm basis and are not led away by propaganda, we shall find that the Bill as now drawn will entirely meet all the requirements of town planning. No difficulty is placed in the way of town planning, which we all desire to see, no one more so than myself, and we shall at the same time have taken a step towards that national economy which is being preached from all platforms by Members of the Government, and which we are now only asking them to live up to.
Town planning, obviously, is not necessary for the whole of England, if one reads Clause 47 of the Bill, which takes power to compel all authorities who could have town planned under the Act of 1925 to prepare schemes. They have not yet all done so, otherwise, there would be no necessity for that provision in the Bill. Presumably they have not done so because they have not thought it necessary and have not desired to spend the ratepayers' money. Under the Bill, those authorities will now have to prepare schemes whether they like it or not. It seems to be conclusive that there must still be many areas who do not require a town-planning scheme, and that is the justification for the attitude which we have taken. We are as concerned as the right hon. Gentleman, the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Greenwood) for the interests of the ratepayers and taxpayers of this country. Those are the main reasons which actuate me in supporting the Minister if he resists the Amendment now before the Committee. I am sure that it will be found that he has ample powers to carry out all he desires to carry out with due regard to economy.

Sir STAFFORD CRIPPS: I support the Amendment, but I do not intend to deal with it from any particular political side or interest, because I feel convinced
that everybody desires in this matter to come to the soundest conclusions from the point of view of the country as a whole. I approach the matter from that point of view. One must examine the Sub-sections which have been put into the Bill in order to see what is their application. It does not seem to be very profitable to discuss them in a very general way without first of all ascertaining the effect of the restrictions which have been put in. In regard to the first one, which deals with land already built upon, I want to give an illustration in order to see how it would operate. The Committee will bear in mind that one of the examples that brought about the insistent demand for the right to plan built-up areas was the Foundling site in London. The London County Council attempted to produce a town planning scheme under the old Act, but the Minister was advised that that scheme could not legally be brought forward under the old Act because it must be dealt with as a built-up area and not as an area likely to be developed under the old Act. If the Foundling site a few years before it had been sold had been considered under the terms of the prohibition in Subsection (2, a), it would have been found impossible for the Minister to be satisfied that he could plan it. Let me quote the words of Sub-section (2, a):
in the case of any land already built upon,"—
that was actually found as regards the Foundling site, and for that reason it was struck out of the town planning scheme—
that public improvements are likely to be made,"—
no one contemplated public improvements being made upon that site—
or other development is likely to take place."—
no one contemplated re-development on the Foundling site. A few years before the site was sold by the authorities no one would have supposed that it would be other than a permanent site in London—
within such a period of time"—
no one thought that such development was likely to take place—
and on such a scale as to make the inclusion of the land in a scheme expedient.
Clearly, it would have been expedient to have included it in a scheme but it would never have been expedient at the best to make a scheme for that portion of land. Therefore, it would have been impossible for the Minister to be satisfied unless he was satisfied:
that the land comprises buildings or other objects of architectural, historic, or artistic interest, or that the land is so situate that the general object of the scheme would be better secured by its inclusion.
The latter words only cover the inclusion of an extra piece of land in an existing scheme.

Mr. M. BEAUMONT: What was the position of the Foundling site when the London County Council tried to make a plan?

Sir S. CRIPPS: I am not dealing with that. The time with which I am dealing was five years before its sale by the authorities. It was not contemplated that it would be sold. It was sold because they happened to get a very remarkable offer by some speculators in land of a very large sum, which tempted them. Five years before that no one could have contemplated its sale, no one could have contemplated its re-development and no one could have contemplated that it would have come within Sub-section (2) (a) of this Clause. That means to say that if five years before the County Council or the Ministry had required and desired to get this open space, one of the very few open spaces which existed in that part of London, this provision would have effectively prohibited it.

Mr. BEAUMONT: On the question of selling, it would have come under the Schedule.

Sir S. CRIPPS: The hon. Member must see that that is too late. That is just the time when it is too late.

Mr. BEAUMONT indicated dissent.

Sir S. CRIPPS: The hon. Member shakes his head. There you have created a new vested interest in the site. Some one has bought it for £1,000,000. You at once get up against a difficulty. They say: "We bought this site with the right to do what we like with it. We did not buy it subject to a town plan that it should be kept as an open space." That was the argument that was put forward at the inquiry when they were trying to town plan it.

Mr. BEAUMONT: Anyone who bought such a site under this Act would buy it subject to the knowledge that in the night, so to speak, a Resolution dealing with it could be passed.

Sir S. CRIPPS: The hon. Member will see that we could not pass a Resolution until the new vested interest had been created. You would then get someone saying: "We have paid £1,000,000 for this site. If you want now to turn it into an open space and pay me £750,000, which means that I shall have a site worth £250,000, I am prepared to do it." If that had been planned in the last 20 years or in the last five years there would have been no question of someone coming along and saying: "I want £750,000, because I have just bought this site." That is why I suggest that anything which takes away the possibility of the longsighted view is very undesirable in a Bill of this character.
I appreciate that it may be undesirable from the point of view of economy at a given moment to plan the whole of the country, but I would invite the Committee to consider whether in fact this prohibition that has been put has not gone a great deal further than that. I am not arguing for the moment whether it is desirable to have prohibition, but I am asking what is the precise prohibition that has been put into the Bill. I suggest that from the point of view of the country and of the landowner this is going to raise great difficulty. The Minister will not have a free hand. He will not be able to say: "I do not think it is ripe for planning. I do not think you ought to do it from the point of view of economy. It is unwise to do it now." He has to say: "I cannot make this Resolution effective," unless he can find something in regard to redevelopment upon which he can put his finger. There are cases where you have large properties changing hands which one can never foretell. They depend upon some accident or some death in a family which owns a large amount of property, or some big charity suddenly finding itself in the position of wanting money or wishing to move into the country from the town. It is that type of case which is covered by this Sub-section and which it would be fatal to proper town planning to be so covered.
Let me come to the rural portion dealt with in paragraph (b). I am at a loss to understand what this means:
In the case of land which is neither already built upon nor in the course of development, nor likely to be developed 
the Minister has to be satisfied
that the land is so situated in relation to land which is already built upon, or in course of development, or on which development is likely to take place as to make its inclusion in a scheme expedient,"—
That means an odd piece of land that is brought into a scheme and is not likely to be developed; a bit to round off the territory
or that it comprises objects or places of natural interest or beauty.
Does that include the whole of "England's green and pleasant land," or not? If it does, the words of paragraph (b) might be omitted, because they can apply to anything. The Minister could be satisfied that any piece of countryside where there are trees, grass and hedges is a place of "natural interest or beauty." If, on the other hand, it is intended to curtail and confine it to places of particular beauty and interest, such as Symond's Yat, then it is going to be absolutely fatal to country planning. Let me illustrate the matter again with an example of a countryside which I know very well, the Cotswolds. What we suffer from there is not development in the ordinary sense and, not that land is likely to be developed in the near future. As far as one can see there is not likely to be what one generally knows as development in the Cotswolds for a long time. What we do suffer from is sporadic bungaloid growth in different parts of the Cotswolds.

Mr. M. BEAUMONT: By the district councils.

Sir S. CRIPPS: Not by the district councils. Whether it is by the district councils or not, what we object to is that we get it. Who puts it there I do not care. If the hon. Member agrees with me he will see that it is necessary to give someone the power to prohibit it, unless these bungaloid growths are going to form the nuclei of developments later on. I know of districts in the Cotswolds where one drives along and suddenly comes across some terrible little red brick building on the side of the road. No one could say that that was an area
likely to be developed. No one could say that the Minister could possibly pass a scheme for that area. Here is a perfectly rural area with no development likely, and then you get these sporadic occurrences. The Committee will not be protecting the landowners if they do not leave out this Sub-section. The hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. M. Beaumont) laughs. I am perfectly serious. The good landowner does not like that sort of thing happening on his neighbour's land. It is always the other man who does the rotten things in the country. What power is there now to prevent it? An eyesore of that sort may spoil a whole district. It may spoil a view which the Minister might say was a place of exceptional beauty. I should agree that the whole of the Cotswolds would qualify under those words.
Let me give another instance. Not many years ago in the little town of Eynsham a sugar-beet factory was dumped down, a corrugated iron building on the side of the river. It polluted the river, was extremely undesirable, and the beauty of that little town or village was spoilt. Before that happened no development was going on and there did not seem any likelihood of development. There ought to be powers to stop that sort of thing. I agree with the hon. Member that it is not necessary that the wilds of Scotland should be planned, but there are other places besides the wilds of Scotland. I am sure that the hon. Member will agree that under Sub-section (2) (b) the Minister could not possibly say that the rural districts which I have mentioned come within the sort of area that could be planned. Surely hon. Members do not suggest that rural districts of that sort ought not to be planned. Let me remind the Committee of what the Minister said on the 23rd January, 1931:
If we are to keep anything of the amenity, beauty and form of the countryside, there should be forethought and power to enforce the results of forethought given to the proper authorities in a proper scheme of country planning."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 23rd January, 1931; col. 541, Vol. 247.]
I agree entirely with that view, and I suggest to the Committee that the words which have been inserted, however desirable it may be to economise and however desirable it may be to give the Minister power to say that in certain cases country planning is unnecessary, put a
bond upon the Minister which is far too rigorous, because it is bound to stop cases of planning where everybody I think in the House, from whatever point of view they look at it, would say that planning is necessary and desirable in the national interest.

5.30 p.m.

Sir H. YOUNG: The right hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Greenwood) was correct in his anticipation that I should not be able to accept this Amendment. He fired a very ringing shot and imported some warmth of tone into a Debate which has hitherto proceeded on the level of the legal argument of the courts. In his more vigorous rhetoric he made two observations with which I find myself more than usually unable to agree. He referred to this as an agreed Bill. I have had ample opportunities of ascertaining the facts, and to suggest that this is an agreed Bill is an affectation in this Parliament just as it would have been in the last Parliament. I think there was a certain lack of generosity in the right hon. Gentleman attempting to believe that the Bill was an agreed Measure in the last Parliament. There was one other passage in the speech of the right hon. Gentleman with which I was totally unable to agree. The right hon. Gentleman taunted me with accepting Amendments to my own Bill. He has held the position which I now hold for a longer period than I have held it, and I have great respect for his authority, but I cannot accept the principle from him that a Minister ought to be ashamed to accept Amendments from the House of Commons. On the contrary, I say that it would be something of which he might well be ashamed if he refused to accept Amendments from any foolish sense of pride. The practice of the right hon. Gentleman is better than his precept, because he himself was not in the least ashamed to accept Amendments to his Bill in the last Parliament. Why should I be ashamed of accepting them to this Bill in this Parliament?

Mr. GREENWOOD: There is a difference in accepting Amendments on vital principles of the Bill and accepting minor Amendments to the Bill.

Sir H. YOUNG: All that means is that the right hon. Gentleman agreed with the Amendments which he accepted to his Bill and disagreed with the Amend-
ments which I have accepted to my Bill. As to the merits of the Bill, I am afraid that we have received little assistance from the right hon. Gentleman except some vigorous assertions based upon authority. Surely of all others in the Bill this is a matter which deserves careful attention on its merits. Many of the apprehensions, indeed all the apprehensions, which have been expressed by the hon. and gallant Member for St. Albans (Sir F. Fremantle), whose acquaintance with this subject is well known, and the hon. and learned Member for Bristol, East (Sir S. Cripps) are based upon a misconception of the provisions in the Bill as they now stand. I do not blame anybody for lagging a little behind a perfect comprehension of the true provisions of the Bill, because it presents peculiar difficulties not only in requiring a close and practical acquaintance with the working of such provisions—and I confess that I myself have that acquaintance only at second hand—but also because this is altogether a new sphere of legislation, and one is not likely at first sight to appreciate the exact bearing of many of the new provisions.
Let me draw the attention of the Committee to the question on its merits, apart from any prejudices on one side or the other. I think we may leave aside the elements of prejudice which have been introduced and consider it simply and solely on its merits. The main object of the Bill, as I indicated on the Second Reading, is to promote the unity of planning. A plan cannot be a good plan unless it covers the whole of the area which ought to be covered. That is agreed; and the question is what is the area which should be covered by a plan. We ought also to remember this, that after all the control which is necessarily applied under planning is not in itself a good thing. On the contrary, it imposes certain disadvantages, and it is only to be accepted if it is necessary, for the purposes of a plan. Control ought not to be applied to a wider area than is absolutely necessary for the purposes of the plan. What has been done in Committee—a most useful and necessary work—has been to give the most scrupulous attention to what is the proper area, the minimum area, necessary in order to secure
the maximum results from the control of the area.
The next point to which I want to draw the attention of the Committee is this, the very wide extension which is actually given to the area which can be planned under the present law. We have made a very long step in the direction of widening the area and strengthening the unity of planning; and it is as long a step as is necessary in view of the present tasks which we have to perform. What have we done? We have extended the scope of planning for the first time to built-up land, provided that the land is not in what we call a static state, that is, provided that it is land on which developments, including public improvements, are likely to take place within such time and on such a scale as to make the inclusion of the land in a scheme expedient. For the first time built-up land is an area which can be planned. That was one of the principal things in the Bill, and it still stands in the Bill. Secondly, we are extending planning powers for the first time to built-up land which, though not included in the category to which I have referred, is so situate in regard to land in that category as to make its inclusion in a scheme expedient. The hon. and learned Member for Bristol East, minimised that provision as applying to little bits of odds and ends of land. He must have done so for the purposes of his argument, because there is no limitation of that sort in the Bill. Indeed, I was very much puzzled to follow the lines of his logic throughout his whole argument. When we make a restriction in the Bill, it is fatal; when we make an extension that also is fatal. Either way it is fatal to the efficient working of the Bill. It can only be accounted for by the fact that the nature of his argument was conditioned by the end he desired to obtain.
Let me continue my description of the extension of planning given by the new Bill. We include for the first time rural land, which, though not being developed nor likely to be developed, is within the sphere of influence of such land and therefore ought to be protected by a scheme. Lastly, we include land, whether urban or rural, which contains features of historic or architectural interest. The hon. and learned Member for Bristol East says the value of that provision depends on the meaning of the word "place";
and he asks whether it means the whole of England's green and pleasant land or only a "place." I suppose that when an Act says a "place" it means a place; and by a place it means, in the old phrase with which we are very familiar, a place within the meaning of the Act. I should imagine that there can be no doubt at all that by a "place" you do not mean a countryside but something which can be recognised as a feature or a spot in the landscape. I say this with some trepidation because I know how unwise it is to seek to read definitions into an Act of Parliament, because judges always come along and point out that you are wrong.
What is the result of that situation; and here at the risk of wearying the Committee I ask the Committee to follow me again with the same close attention, if they are interested in this topic, because a clear apprehension of the wide sweep we have given to the powers of planning under the Bill will lead to a cessation of the rather unfortunate misapprehensions from which we have suffered and which have been the cause of a good deal of the criticisms in general. What can you include as a result of this extension of the powers of planning? You can include in the case of urban land any land on which development is likely to take place. Secondly, you can include any land which comprises buildings or other objects of architectural, historical, or artistic interest; and, thirdly, any land which is so situated that the general object of the scheme will be better secured by its inclusion. I ask hon. Members to think of any conceivable cases of land, which should reasonably be planned, and which cannot be included under one of these categories.
The hon. and learned Member for Bristol East quoted the instance of the Foundling site. Ho will forgive me for saying that that is a most unfortunate instance to produce; and for this reason. Under ordinary circumstances such a site as the Foundling site would be land which is likely to be developed beyond any reasonable possibility of doubt, but there was a special reason why that particular site was not likely to be developed, and the reason was special and peculiar to that particular site. It was the status of the landowner. The trustees of a great
historical Trust were not considered in those days to be likely to bring their land into the market because of their peculiar status, and it is for that reason only that the site could be brought into the argument by the hon. and learned Member.

Sir F. FREMANTLE: With the Bill as amended, would there have been any power to plan the Foundling Hospital site until the recent decision of the Governors to move out; and then how soon would it have been possible to plan it?

Sir H. YOUNG: In the first place, I must utter a word of caution about pronouncing upon any particular case. I do not think it really tends to clarify the argument; and it is for that reason that I have tried to keep it out of the way. The answer to the hon. and gallant Member for St. Albans (Sir F. Fremantle) is that it would depend on whether it was still held by the same people now as then. If the same peculiar conditions as to the status of the owner still attach, the conclusion would be the same now as it was then. Turning to the question of rural land, let me again ask the Committee to follow closely the state of affairs in regard to the extension of powers to which I have referred. In the case of rural land you can plan land, which is in course of development, or land which is likely to be developed. You can plan land in either of these cases, and also if it is so situated in relation to land which is already built upon, or is likely to be developed, so as to make its inclusion in a scheme expedient.
Again, I ask the Committee to decide whether under these powers there is any possible case of land which ought to be included in a town planning scheme which could not be included. If we pass beyond these categories of land which is being developed or likely to be developed, or land which is so situated in relation to land developed or likely to be developed, that it ought to be included in a scheme, it is clear to every practical man that there are areas in the hearts of cities and in the remoter parts of the country to which none of these categories apply. If none of these descriptions applies to these areas, there is no reasonable cause for including them in a plan. A plan can serve no possible purpose in relation to land which has not
been developed, is not likely to be developed, and whose inclusion in the plan on the ground that it is situated in some relation to land, which is developed or is likely to be developed, is not useful or necessary.
The answer to the apprehensions of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for St. Albans and to some of the cases quoted by the hon. and learned Member for East Bristol was clearly given by my hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Mr. Rhys). Most of these cases are clearly cases that could be included in the planning scheme. There are the apprehensions felt in some quarters as regards other and more general cases in great cities, such as Birmingham, where there are many areas of undeveloped land, bits of land in the city surrounded by built-over areas. I wish again not to be understood to be expressing judgment on these particular cases, but I can say that in a typical case of undeveloped land included within the bounds of a city surrounded by buildings, that that is land which is likely to be developed and could as such be included in the planning area. That is one of the great gains of the Bill.
Apprehensions were also expressed most clearly by the hon. and gallant Member for St. Albans as to the surrounding areas, the areas immediately around great cities. It appears to me that the typical case of open land which is surrounding a great city is clearly land which is likely to be developed. In fact it is characteristically the kind of land which ought to be included in a planning scheme. That can usually be done under the present law. Then we have the apprehensions expressed on two curiously contradictory grounds—the apprehensions lest the provisions should not work in the case where development is sudden, and the apprehension that the provisions would not work in cases where development is gradual. In either of those cases I think the answer is quite clear. Take the case of sudden development. I do not understand the difficulty of the hon. and learned Member for East Bristol about the bungalows in the Cotswolds. If bungalows are going up I should think that in plain language that was development in progress. That is a condition which would warrant a plan. It is commonly said, "But development may
be so sudden that it anticipates the plan; it takes place before you can deal with it." I am very sceptical about these cases, and about there being a number of cases worth noticing, in which there is development so sudden that it is not apprehended by anyone as possible or likely to take place. The mere fact that development has already begun is strong prima facie evidence that more is likely to follow. My answer to that criticism is this: In these cases, I should say that it is probable that the planning authority had been caught napping; they have not extended their plan sufficiently widely. If development comes along and takes them by surprise it shows that they have been lax in their duties. They have no one to blame but themselves. In the case of gradual development I think there is much less difficulty. In gradual development there will have been ample notice to the planning authority that it is an area which ought to be covered under the plan.
I have dealt with what I believe are the principal criticisms directed against the Bill and have pointed out the misconceptions on which I think they are based. I submit that the planning powers conferred by the Bill are adequate to cover all the practical purposes which are to be served by the plan and that they are a long step forward in the direction of unity of planning. The further step of imposing control, involving legal machinery, upon land where it cannot be of any practical purpose ought not to be taken. In this matter I have the comfort of knowing that the provisions in the Bill excite the hostility equally of those who are most advanced in their views on either side.

Mr. DENMAN: It is not quite fair to ask the Minister to give a specific answer with regard to special cases, but there is one region that does feel rather alarmed about Sub-section (2), and that is the Lake District. Those who are keen on. planning the Lake District and who, of course, include a large number of Members of this House, are not sure whether Sub-section (2) will or will not permit the planning of that region as a whole. As I read the Bill it seems to me that the Minister has power, that the regional authority can prepare a scheme for the whole district, and that nothing in Subsection (2) would prevent the Minister
from giving his approval to that scheme. If the light hon. Gentleman is able to give a public assurance on that point it would console a great many people who do regard the Lake District as a unit of beauty and would wish above all things to see it so preserved.

Mr. HOROBIN: I rise as one of those who attended every meeting of Standing Committee A, as a supporter of the Minister of Health. I am afraid that perhaps I did not give him much help, as I was able only on one occasion to vote against him, and that apparently is the duty of supporters of the National Government. I did not fail to note the sophistry with which the right hon. Gentleman submitted to the inevitable, for every single part of his speech, in so far as it referred to rural England, was an elaborate argument that it was totally unnecessary to waste the time of the House in introducing this Measure at all. The existing law gives us power to plan when building is in course of development or likely. We are not starting all this afresh. It is not on any ground of theory that people who are interested in the preservation of the countryside are anxious. It is because, in years of experience, it has been found in practice that all the arguments of the right hon. Gentleman who conducts the Ministry of Health with such distinction and with as much efficiency as possible, have been found untrue in practice. It is not possible to prevent being "caught napping," as the right hon. Gentleman put it; with the best will in the world, as long years of experience have shown, it is not possible to prevent sporadic spoiling of the countryside, the missing out of estates which should be perfectly safe estates, such as that of the Duke of Montrose which recently was split up with such unhappy results, and so on.
It is not on the ground of theory; it is on the ground of practice. It was for that reason that this Bill was introduced; it was for that reason that the present Chancellor of the Exchequer said it was necessary to plan the whole of England and Scotland. It was presumably for that reason that the Minister introduced the Bill in its original form. Why was the Bill altered? Why was it over-night curtailed in this unhappy fashion? It was because the right hon. Gentleman, to put
it bluntly, was bluffed by the Parliamentary racket on the third bench above the Gangway. Those hon. Gentlemen and the Noble Lord pointed out quite truly that there were only two months before the House rose, and that each one of them was quite capable of talking without stopping for two months. They, therefore, said that if the Minister wanted his Bill at all he must do something about it. They put down an Amendment which, in effect, would have brought the Bill back to the original 1925 Act, and the Minister bought them off with this concession. I do not know that he gained very much by it, because even on the Report stage, after 26 days in Committee, we have had 150 Government Amendments which required what seemed like 150 speeches or the same speech 150 times from the Bill's opponents.
6.0 p.m.
However that may be, these hon. and right hon. Gentlemen who hate this Bill, and say so with great candour, made the unhappy Minister's life a misery in Committee, and they have done their best on Report to make the life of other Members a misery. I hope they are satisfied with the result, though I am quite certain that no one else is. I am certain that ordinary people in all parts of the House are not satisfied. This concession is so palpably silly that it cannot by any stretch of imagination be made to mean anything whatever. As regards the preservation of the countryside, it means, in effect, that with one single exception we are back to the 1925 Act. The exception is the difference between the word "developed" and the word "built." All we have done for the preservation of the countryside, so far as the area included is concerned, is that the word "developed" in this Bill has a very much wider meaning than "built." To that extent we shall be able to include a good deal of land which otherwise would not have been included. I am the last to say that all local authorities are perfect, and I agree with some of the Jeremiads which my Noble Friend opposite delights to make as to the inefficiency, wickedness, laziness, incompetence, and so forth of local authorities. But nevertheless that protection of the local authorities, for what it is worth, is all that this unhappy countryside of England possesses. Now
when unfortunately great estates are being broken up, such protection as we have is to be found in control over speculative building by local authorities. It may not be worth much but it is all that we have, and the fundamental vice remains here, that instead of being able to say that the whole of the land is to come under that protection and that any development which takes place has to pass that test, you will, if this concession means anything at all, find that a. great deal of the land of England is without such protection.
I am sure that, in his heart of hearts, the right hon. Gentleman cordially dissents, as I do, from the view that we want England just to have a few small beauty spots which will be carefully wired in and to which people will be charged sixpence admission and told, "This is what England used to look like." The whole of the English countryside in my short memory used to be, almost without exception, a thing of beauty. It is not little bits here and there that we ought to preserve, but the decency and general beauty of the whole, and I defy the right hon. Gentleman or anyone else to say that we should pick out little pieces of it for protection and to say, in effect, "You can do what you like with the rest." To do so would be just about as reasonable as to turn up somewhere in a beautiful evening dress with a large white shirt front but with two or three spots of mud on the shirt front, and to say, "These do not really matter because most of the shirt front is white." It is true that places which are known to be on the verge of being developed can be protected, but the ordinary normal quiet countryside, without special distinction, but with its own beauty, has not that protection, and we have found, not by theory but by practice, how much it needs that protection.
We know that the right hon. Gentleman would have done as much as anybody to give it that protection. He himself introduced a Private Member's Bill for that purpose. The House of Commons, without a Division, decided to give it that protection, but a small distinguished, and pertinacious—I will not say loquacious—body of hon. Members opposite have compelled the right hon. Gen-
tleman against his will to withdraw that protection. I believe that this Committee will have great reason to regret that decision. I do not see, however, that we can press the Minister to do anything about it. We all recognise the scrupulous fairness with which he has honoured every one of his pledges, and I do not see how one can press him to alter, by one jot or tittle, the definite pledge which he gave in Committee. All that I would say, beyond regretting that the right hon. Gentleman made that pledge, is that while hon. Members opposite are entitled to the strict letter of their pledge, they are not entitled to one tittle beyond it. This concession by the Minister is so drawn that in administration it can mean several very different things. The right hon. Gentleman, I am sure, could, administratively, allay a great many of the fears of those who have done their best to support him in what we know to be his genuine desire in this matter. He could do so by ensuring that this concession shall not prevent any authority which is willing and able to exercise the powers given by this Bill, from so doing, unless he is satisfied beyond a peradventure that equivalent protection is present. If there are special reasons, if a place is so inaccessible that it may be regarded as fairly safe, then we must make the best of it, but I earnestly hope that the Ministry of Health will so interpret this concession in its narrowest way that our fears in this matter will prove to be wrong.

Mr. EADY: It is not often that I have the opportunity of showing myself in sympathy with hon. Members opposite but on this occasion I support the Amendment. When this Bill was introduced it was welcomed by all municipal authorities and by all associations connected with municipal authorities. I happen to be an old-timer in connection with this matter. I am an old town-planner and have had great experience in town planning and I come from a city which has done a great amount of that kind of work. The Bill as I say was welcomed as opening up a new era and enabling municipalities to enjoy many advantages. The idea, I understood, was to bring the old Act up to date and give us an opportunity of dealing with these matters on lines different from those which had been
followed in the past. The Bill was also welcomed as giving an opportunity which we did not possess before, of dealing with built-up areas but if it goes through as it is now worded, all those advantages will be removed.
Who should have more right than the people located in these districts to say in what part planning is to take place? We are told that authority rests with the Minister and we all admire the right hon. Gentleman who now fills that position, but he will not always occupy it and it is possible that someone may come along who will not be as careful and as scrupulous as the right hon. Gentleman. I support the Amendment because I feel sure that it would give encouragement to town planning. Town planning has to be continuous. It is necessary to have regard to such matters as changed conditions of traffic and other changing conditions. Roads have to be widened and plans have to be made in time to deal with the various developments that are taking place. Clause 6 is the crux of the situation. I believe that it is going to do more harm to this Bill than all the other things which have been mentioned put together. When the Bill was introduced we regarded it as a Measure which was for the country's good but it has now been so mutiliated that we can hardly recognise it. This is one of the most important points raised in connection with it and I sincerely hope that the Committee will support the Amendment and give local authorities every encouragement in this matter.

Miss RATHBONE: I, like the last two speakers, am quite unconverted by the speech of the Minister. It is a great disappointment to me because I had hopes up to the last minute that the right hon. Gentleman would convert me to a belief in this complex Sub-section. Knowing the Minister's great interest in town planning and his general enthusiasm for planning I thought that the fault was in my own understanding and that his explanation would reveal some pearl of lucid definite meaning in the middle of the convolutions of this very involved statement. But as I listened to him it seemed to me that no such pearl emerged. What did emerge was an argument which really proved too much. The Minister tried to show that there was no piece of land,
either under paragraph (a) or paragraph (b) of this Sub-section that would conceivably need protection by a town planning scheme which was not capable of being covered under the Clause. But if that is so what is the need for the Subsection? Has the right hon. Gentleman such a poor opinion of the local authorities that he imagines that they will go to the trouble of town planning areas in which there is no conceivable justification for doing so? Has the earlier Town Planning Act been so enthusiastically carried out and so widely extended that all that is necessary is to place a check and a curb on the enthusiastic town planning of local authorities?
Surely the opposite has been the case. The local authorities in many cases have been by no means eager enough to carry out their powers. If this Sub-section is only to rule out the town planning of bits of land which only a lunatic local authority would think of town planning, is it worth while going to the trouble and expense involved and wasting the time and hampering the energies of sound local authorities, by obliging a special inquiry to take place every time a local authority wants to prepare a scheme. It is true that the Minister is not to order a local inquiry in all cases but I fail to see how he will form the judgments required by paragraph (a) or paragraph (b) without a local inquiry in each case and the local inquiry is bound to cost money. The group of Members who are leading the opposition to the whole Bill—and to this Clause by way of hamstringing the Bill—are supposed to be enthusiasts on the subject of expensive inquiries and bureaucracy. What is more likely to lead to those results than to put upon the Minister every time a scheme is presented the necessity of satisfying himself on all the points raised by these two paragraphs?
One of my objections to the Sub-section is that it is unnecessary unless indeed in the case of an eventuality which is very unlikely to arise namely that of over-enthusiasm on the part of local authorities. Further, it is expensive because it will lead to local inquiries. I have two other objections which have not been removed by the Minister's argument. The whole tendency is to ask for short term rather than for long term planning. What is the meaning of the words:
within such a period of time and on such a scale as to make the inclusion of the land in a scheme expedient,
if they do not imply that a scheme should not be made out until development is imminent. It is just when development is imminent that it is much more hampering to property owners and much more likely to lead to claims for compensation if a scheme is brought into existence, than if it were done well ahead when nobody has invested money in the land or made plans which are likely to be dislocated by the town-planning scheme. I do not see how the Minister can deny that the whole idea of this Sub-section is to prevent town planning authorities from producing their schemes until, so to speak, the very last hour of the last day.
The other objection that I want to raise is that this is bound to lead to a capricious policy in the matter of town planning. Can anyone deny it? Read these two paragraphs, and note how amazingly vague are the expressions that are used in them. Here is one:
within such a period of time and on such a scale as to make the inclusion of the land in a scheme expedient.
Then again:
or that the land is so situate that the general object of the scheme would be better secured by its inclusion.
There are no definite criteria, there are no tests by which those words can be given a concrete substance. In the long run they throw the whole thing on the judgment of individual Ministers, and that is what I mean by saying that it will lead to a capricious policy in the matter of town planning. Everything will depend on who happens to be Minister of Health for the time being. So long as we have, as Minister of Health, a gentleman like the right hon. Member for Sevenoaks (Sir H. Young), who is the author of two private Members' Bills dealing with town planning, we shall feel pretty safe and know that he has a judgment, when he has not got a gang of back benchers behind him whom he has to buy off, which can be trusted in the matter of town planning; but supposing he is succeeded by a Minister who is a Philistine, a Minister who is a die-hard, he may reverse the whole policy, and it is not safe, in such a matter as town
planning, that so much should depend on the views of a particular individual.
As long as the responsibility was left to the local authorities themselves it was not so bad. I am not an enthusiast for local authorities in all respects, but at any rate you have something there that is never turned out of office altogether, so that there is a continuous stream of judgment brought to bear on town planning problems; and it is not good that local authorities should never know where they are, that they should feel, "Oh yes, we shall get this scheme through so long as the right hon. Member for Sevenoaks is Minister of Health, but it will be quite different if the Ministry goes out suddenly, through an election, and some other person takes his place."
I do not want to sit down without making some kind of definite suggestion, though, of course the suggestion that I should like to see adopted, namely, the acceptance by the Minister of this Amendment, is not going to happen. We all know that if we carry this to a Division, as I hope we shall, we shall be beaten, and heavily beaten, but there is one appeal that I would like to make to the Minister, and that is that he should to a certain extent safeguard the defects I have pointed out in this Clause by supplying himself with some body of persons on whose advice he can rely. When the Minister in the last Parliament was making his Second Reading speech on the Bill introduced by his predecessor, I noticed that he found three main faults with the earlier Bill. One was that there was no Clause in it dealing with woodlands; he has remedied that. Another was that there was no Clause dealing with advertisements; he has remedied that. The third fault was that there was no Clause setting up an advisory committee. Well, there is no Clause—

Sip H. YOUNG: That was sheer ignorance on my part. The Minister of Health has powers under the general law to appoint an advisory committee.

Miss RATHBONE: I had already gathered that privately, but what I was leading up to was that if the Minister is not going to give us this Amendment, at least he should give us a promise that he will use his powers to form an advisory committee; and may I suggest that he should do more than form one advisory committee, that he should form regional
advisory committees, because he really wants expert advice brought to bear on these problems. If this Sub-section is not to be capriciously used by Ministers with different policies and different Administrations, he really wants to be safeguarded by advisory committees representing the best opinion, not only of Whitehall, but of the different localities. This is largely a question dependent on intimate local knowledge. I happen to belong to a county which has not been kindly treated by nature in the matter of natural beauty—the county of Lancashire—and I note that such security as is given in this Clause for the preservation of beauty seems aimed mainly at safeguarding those counties that have been alluded to by speakers in the Debate, such as Sussex and Surrey, and the Cotswolds, bits of country that are rich in objects that are known as
objects of architectural, historic, or artistic interest,
but the ugly counties have to be considered too. Beauty is relative, and we who live in counties that are as flat as a billiard table and often covered in places with a cloud of smoke, know how beautiful they can be only so long as they are not uglified and made vulgar and disgusting and sordid by bad town planning, by bungaloid growths, by ugly groups of factory chimneys on a wonderful, elevated piece of country, perhaps where there is a stream and a bit of woodland, and something of a landscape is obtainable.
I often think in this connection of a remark once made to me by a poor woman who was sent for a country holiday somewhere quite close to the Mersey, where there was little beauty visible to the ordinary eye, excepting a few chimneys in the distance and the sweep of the Mersey itself. Yet it made her weep to think how beautiful God had made the land and how few people could see it. That is the way that the beauty of what is often called ugly country is viewed by those who care for it, and I beg the Minister to try to mitigate the great injury done to his Bill by this Subsection by gathering together advisory committees all over the country, where he can get the best local advice possible.
I feel that the one argument that appealed to him in the arguments of the Opposition was that the whole Bill puts too much confidence in the good taste of
individual local authorities. We should not feel that there was so much danger from that cause if we knew that there were, all over the country, regional advisory committees advising the Minister as to the application of this Clause and of the rest of the Bill, committees which would contain representatives of the profession of architecture and experts on archaeology, on churches, and so forth, who could give him the best advice, and who would know beforehand what beauty spots there were in particular localities and what spots ought to be protected, and who would put the Minister wise before he was called upon for the decisions of so extraordinarily complicated a nature as. those raised by this Clause.

Viscount CRANBORNE: I really cannot understand the fuss which the last two or three speakers have felt about this Sub-section. There does not seem to me that there is any real limitation at all under it. It includes—
the case of any land already built upon, that public improvements are likely to be made, or other development is likely to take place.
Where is not that possible? The last speaker said that bungaloid growths might go up anywhere, but that means that any land is in a possible state of development, and therefore it would all come under this Sub-section. Then it says:
or that the land comprises buildings or other objects of architectural, historic, on artistic interest.
Any place with a church in it comes under this Sub-section, and any part of England can be included under it. In my opinion my Noble Friend the Member for West Derbyshire (Marquess of Hartington) has secured a purely illusory concession, and the Committee will make itself ridiculous if, having spent hours putting in an illusory concession, it now spends hours taking it out again. It will not do any harm to leave it in the Bill, and I hope the Committee will leave it there.

Mr. WALLHEAD: If the Sub-section is as innocuous as the Noble Lord the Member for Southern Dorset (Viscount Cranborne) says, one wonders why on earth the Sub-section is in the Bill at all and why there is any objection to taking it out. As a matter of fact, it is highly important to those who wish to retard the operation of the Bill and who, by
all possible means, have stated their objection to the whole theory of town planning. Instead of retarding it, we want to give some assistance in pushing it forward. I agree that not all local authorities are to be trusted on questions of beauty, of architecture, and so on, and there is a good case to be made out for an advisory committee of experts and others who are interested and who are conversant with the whole matter from every point of view.
There is much force in what the hon. Member for Central Southwark (Mr. Horobin) said. He stated that he was afraid this House would regret the passing of this Sub-section. It is not merely this House. If it were, it would not matter very much, unless we use the word "House" with the meaning of continuity. One does not suffer immediately, from the beginnings of bad planning; it is the future generations who suffer. If bad buildings and bad planning were a temporary matter, it would not so much matter, but once begun on wrong lines, they continue and become of a permanent character, and one has to suffer for it for generation after generation, as we to-day know to our cost. When I was for a short spell engaged in municipal government, I was on a committee that had to do with town planning and improvements, and I know how important it is to have all the powers possible to deal with the questions that arise in that connection.
I understand, from arguments used from the other side, that very much of their opposition to this planning is due to the cost. They talk of the necessity for national economy, but how long is the period of national economy to last? Are they so pessimistic that they think the National Government cannot get us out of this difficulty in the next five or 10 years? Are national economy and all its implications to go on for ever and to curb and check every move that ought to be made in advance? To my mind, it is bad economy to allow wrong planning to take place, and that is the evil of the whole business. It is economy to spend wisely and to plan far enough ahead, and it would seem that, even with regard to the so-called outside rural districts, with the
development of rapid transport on roads in hitherto unsuspected directions, the necessity will arise still more for safeguarding places that are apparently at present outside the area of possible planning.
6.30 p.m.
It is very well for the Minister to tell us about an authority being taken unawares. Anybody who has a bit of land on the edge of land that he knows is to be planned can at once set about developing his bit, and can create the very evils that we are desirous of avoiding. I would not like to say, after what we have seen in the last 20 years with regard to the development of transport, how soon many areas will not be brought in. There is the question of aeroplanes. One does not know to what extent far-off districts will be brought near at hand by an effective method of air carriage; districts may spring up in a few months' time which at the present moment are regarded as impossible. Therefore, I suggest that it will be wise to withdraw this Sub-section in the interests of town planning as a whole, so that future generations, not merely in the neighbourhood of towns but in areas far distant from towns, may be protected from the evils that those who live in towns know too well to their cost exist.

Captain ARCHIBALD RAMSAY: I ask the Minister to resist the Amendment. Speaking as one of those who have not inherited any bitterness from the Committee I say with confidence that many friends of mine are convinced that we did not go to the last election to support an unqualified Measure such as the original Town and Country Planning Bill. We are grateful to the Minister for the concessions which he has made and the way in which he has tempered the wind to us. We appreciate those concessions and ask him to resist this Amendment, which, as in the case of the original Bill, we regard as suspicious in its paternity. Those of us who support the Bill because it is a Government Measure do so with a certain uneasiness of conscience, so we do thank the Minister for the concessions which he has made.

Question put, "That the words, 'A resolution' stand part of the Clause."

The Committee divided: Ayes 305; Noes 50.

Division No. 214.]
AYES.
[3.33 p. m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Briscoe, Capt. Richard George
Christie, James Archibald


Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds, W.)
Broadbent, Colonel John
Clayton, Dr. George C.


Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.
Brockiebank, C. E. R.
Clydesdale, Marquess of


Aitchison, Rt. Hon. Craigle M.
Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd, Hexham)
Colman, N. C. D.


Albery, Irving James
Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Conant, R. J. E.


Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'k'nhd.)
Browne, Captain A. C.
Cook, Thomas A.


Apsley, Lord
Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Cooke, Douglas


Astor. Maj. Hn. John J. (Kent, Dover)
Bullock, Captain Malcolm
Cooper, A. Duff


Atholl, Duchess of
Burghley, Lord
Copeland, Ida


Baillie, Sir Adrian W. M.
Burnett, John George
Courthope, Colonel Sir George L.


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Cadogan, Hon. Edward
Craddock, Sir Reginald Henry


Barton, Capt. Basil Kelsey
Caine, G. R. Hall-
Cranborne, Viscount


Beaumont, M. W. (Bucks., Aylesbury)
Campbell, Edward Taswell (Bromley)
Craven-Ellis, William


Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'th, C)
Caporn, Arthur Cecil
Crooke, J. Smedley


Belt, Sir Alfred L.
Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Crookshank, Capt. H. C. (Gainsb'ro)


Betterton, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry B.
Cayzer, Sir Charles (Chester, City)
Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard


Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman
Cayzer, Maj. Sir H. R. (Prtsmth., S.)
Dalkeith, Earl of


Blaker, Sir Reginald
Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)
Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)


Bossom, A. C.
Chalmers, John Rutherford
Davison, Sir William Henry


Boulton, W. W.
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. Sir J. A. (Birm., W)
Denman, Hon. R. D.


Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart
Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. N. (Edgbaston)
Denville, Alfred


Sower, Lieut.-Com. Robert Tatton
Chapman, Col. R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Despencer-Robertson, Major J. A. F.


Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.
Chorlton, Alan Ernest Leofric
Dickle, John P.


Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough)
Chotzner, Alfred James
Dixon, Rt. Hon. Herbert


Donner, P. W.
Knox, Sir Alfred
Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)


Dower, Captain A. V. G.
Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton
Ramsbotham, Herwald


Drewe, Cedric
Latham, Sir Herbert Paul
Ramsden, E.


Duggan, Hubert John
Law, Richard K. (Hull, S. W.)
Rankin, Robert


Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington, N.)
Leech, Dr. J. W.
Rathbone, Eleanor


Dunglass, Lord
Lees-Jones, John
Rawson, Sir Cooper


Eady, George H.
Levy, Thomas
Rea, Walter Russell


Eden, Robert Anthony
Lewis, Oswald
Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)


Ednam, Viscount
Liddall, Walter S.
Reid, Capt. A. Cunningham-


Elliot, Major Rt. Hon. Walter, E.
Lindsay, Noel Ker
Reid, James S. C. (Stirling)


Elliston, Captain George Sampson
Llewellyn-Jones, Frederick
Reid, William Allan (Derby)


Elmley, Viscount
Lloyd, Geoffrey
Remer, John R.


Emmott, Charles E. G. C.
Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hn. G. (Wd. Gr'n)
Rhys, Hon. Charles Arthur U.


Emrys-Evans, P. V.
Loder, Captain J. de Vere
Robinson, John Roland


Erskine-Bolst, Capt. C. C. (Blackpool)
Lovat-Fraser, James Alexander
Rosbotham, S. T.


Everard, W. Lindsay
Lumley, Captain Lawrence R.
Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)


Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Mabane, William
Ruggles-Brise, Colonel E. A.


Ferguson, Sir John
McCorquodale, M. S.
Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter


Foot, Dingle (Dundee)
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham)
Runge, Norah Cecil


Foot, Isaac (Cornwall, Bodmin)
MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)
Salmon, Major Isidore


Fox, Sir Gifford
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
salt, Edward, W.


Fraser, Captain Ian
McEwen, Captain J. H. F.
Samuel, Sir Arthur Michael (F'nham)


Fremantle, Sir Francis
McKeag, William
Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)


Fuller, Captain A. G.
McKie, John Hamilton
Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart


Ganzoni, Sir John
Maclay, Hon. Joseph Paton
Savery, Samuel Servington


George, Megan A. Lloyd (Anglesea)
McLean, Major Alan
Scone, Lord


Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Maclean, Rt. Hn. Sir D. (Corn'll, N.)
Selley, Harry R.


Glossop, C. W. H.
McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)
Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)


Gluckstein, Louis Halle
Macmillan, Maurice Harold
Skelton, Archibald Noel


Glyn, Major Ralph G. C.
Macquisten, Frederick Alexander
Slater, John


Goff, Sir Park
Maitland, Adam
Smiles, Lieut.-Col. Sir Walter D.


Goodman, Colonel Albert W.
Makins, Brigadier-General Ernest
Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)


Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)
Mallalieu, Edward Lancelot
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Graves, Marjorie
Mander, Geoffrey le M.
Somervell, Donald Bradley


Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John
Manningham-Buller, Lt.-Col. Sir M.
Somerville, Annesley A. (Windsor)


Gritten, W. G. Howard
Margesson, Capt. Henry David R.
Sotheron-Estcourt, Captain T. E.


Guinness, Thomas L. E. B.
Martin, Thomas B.
Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.


Guy, J. C. Morrison
Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John
Spencer, Captain Richard A.


Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.
Meller, Richard James
Spender-Clay, Rt. Hon. Herbert H.


Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)
Merriman, Sir F. Boyd
Stanley, Lord (Lancaster, Fylde)


Hamilton, Sir R. W. (Orkney & Ztl'nd)
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)
Stanley Hon. O. F. G. (Westmorland)


Hammersley, Samuel S.
Milne, Charles
Stevenson, James


Hanbury, Cecil
Milne, Sir John S. Wardlaw-
Stones, James


Hanley, Dennis A.
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)
Strickland, Captain W. F.


Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Molson, A. Hugh Eisdale
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Harris, Sir Percy
Moreing, Adrian C.
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray F.


Hartington, Marquess of
Morgan, Robert H.
Sutcliffe, Harold


Hartland, George A.
Morris, John Patrick (Salford, N.)
Tate, Mavis Constance


Harvey, Major s. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)
Taylor, Vice-Admiral E. A. (P'dd'gt'n, S.)


Haslam, Sir John (Bolton)
Moss, Captain H. J.
Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)


Hellgers, Captain F. F. A.
Muirhead, Major A. J.
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Henderson, Sir Vivian L. (Chelmsf'd)
Munro, Patrick
Todd, Capt. A. J. K. (B'wick-on-T.)


Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.
Train, John


Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.
Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth)
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Holdsworth, Herbert
Nicholson, Rt. Hn. W. G. (Petersf'ld)
Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon


Hope, Capt. Arthur O. J. (Aston)
North, Captain Edward T.
Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Hornby, Frank
Nunn, William
Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)


Horobin, Ian M.
Oman, Sir Charles William C.
Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.


Horsbrugh, Florence
O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh
Wedderburn, Henry James Scrymgeour


Howitt, Dr. Alfred B.
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William G. A.
Weymouth, Viscount


Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Palmer, Francis Noel
White, Henry Graham


Hume, Sir George Hopwood
Patrick, Colin M.
Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)


Hunter, Dr. Joseph (Dumfries)
Peake, Captain Osbert
Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)


Hurd, Sir Percy
Pearson, William G.
Wills, Wilfrid D.


Hutchison, W. D. (Essex, Romford)
Peat, Charles U.
Wilson, Clyde T. (West Toxteth)


Jackson, Sir Henry (Wandsworth, C.)
Perkins, Walter R. D.
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Jackson, J. C. (Heywood & Radcliffe)
Petherick, M.
Womersley, Walter James


James, Wing.-Com. A. W. H.
Peto, Sir Basil E.(Devon, Barnstaple)
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir H. Kingsley


Jesson, Major Thomas E.
Peto, Geoffrey K. (W'verh'pt'n, Bilst'n)
Wood, Sir Murdoch McKenzie (Banff)


Johnstone, Harcourt (S. Shields)
Pike, Cecil F.
Worthington, Dr. John V.


Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Potter, John
Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (S'v'noaks)


Jones, Lewis (Swansea, West)
Pownall, Sir Assheton
Young, Ernest J. (Middlesbrough, E.)


Ker, J. Campbell
Preston, Sir Walter Rueben



Kerr, Hamilton W.
Procter, Major Henry Adam
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Knatchbull, Captain Hon. M. H. R.
Pybus, Percy John
Sir Frederick Thomson and Lord


Knebworth, Viscount
Raikes, Henry V. A. M.
Erskine.


Knight, Holford
Ramsay, Capt. A. H. M. (Midlothian)



NOES.


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South)
Daggar, George
Grundy, Thomas W.


Attlee, Clement Richard
Duncan, Charles (Derby, Claycross)
Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton)


Batey, Joseph
Edwards, Charles
Healy, Cahir


Brown, C. W. E. (Notts., Mansfield)
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur
Hirst, George Henry


Buchanan, George.
Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)
Jenkins, Sir William


Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)




Kirkwood, David
McGovern, John
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George
Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)
Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)


Lawson, John James
Maxton, James
Williams, Dr. John H. (Lianelly)


Leonard, William
Milner, Major James
Williams, Thomas (York., Don Valley)


Logan, David Gilbert
Parkinson, John Allen



Lunn, William
Price, Gabriel
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)
Thorne, William James
Mr. John and Mr. Groves.


Motion made, and Question, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

Division No. 215.]
AYES.
[6.33 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington, N.)
Lovat-Fraser, James Alexander


Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds, W.)
Dunglass, Lord
Lumley, Captain Lawrence R.


Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.
Eden, Robert Anthony
Mabane, William


Aitchison, Rt. Hon. Cralgle M.
Elliot, Major Rt. Hon. Walter E.
McEwen, Captain J. H. F.


Albery, Irving James
Elliston, Captain George Sampson
McKle, John Hamilton


Alien, Sir J. Sandeman (Liverp'l, W.)
Elmley, Viscount
McLean, Major Alan


Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'k'nh'd.)
Emrys-Evans, P. V.
McLean, Dr. W.H. (Tradeston)


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Entwistle, Cyril Fullard
Macmillan, Maurice Harold


Apsley Lord
Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare)
Macquisten, Frederick Alexander


Aske Sir Robert William
Erskine-Bolst, Capt. C. C. (Blackpool)
Makins, Brigadier-General Ernest


Atholl Duchess of
Essenhigh, Reginald Clare
Mander, Geoffrey le M.


Atkinson Cyril
Everard, W. Lindsay
Manningham-Buller, Lt.-Col. Sir M.


Bailey, Eric Alfred George
Fermoy, Lord
Margesson, Capt. Henry David R.


Baldwin-Webb, Colonel J.
Foot, Isaac (Cornwall, Bodmin)
Marsden, Commander Arthur


Balniel, Lord
Ford, Sir Patrick J.
Martin, Thomas B.


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Fox, Sir Gifford
Mason, David M. (Edinburgh, E.)


Barton Capt. Basil Kelsey
Fraser, Captain Ian
Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John


Beauchamp, Sir Brograve Campbell
Fuller, Captain A. G.
Merriman, Sir F. Boyd


Beaumont, M.W. (Bucks., Aylesbury)
Ganzoni, Sir John
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)


Beaumont Hn. R. E. B. (Portsm'th, C.)
Gillett, Sir George Masterman
Milne, Charles


Belt. Sir Alfred L.
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Mitchell, Harold P. (Br'tf'd & Chisw'k)


Bennett, Capt. Sir Ernest Nathaniel
Glossop, C. W. H.
Mitcheson, G. G.


Betterton, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry B.
Gluckstein, Louis Halle
Moreing, Adrian C.


Bevan Stuart James (Holborn)
Glyn, Major Ralph G. C.
Morgan, Robert H.


Blaker, Sir Reginald
Goff, Sir Park
Morris, John Patrick (Salford, N.)


Bossom, A. C.
Goldie, Noel B.
Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)


Boulton, W. W.
Goodman, Colonel Albert W.
Morrison, William Shepherd


Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart
Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)
Moss, Captain H. J.


Bowyer, Capt. Sir George, E. W.
Grenfell, E. C. (City of London)
Muirhead. Major A. J.


Bracken, Brendan
Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John
Munro, Patrick


Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough)
Gritten, W. G. Howard
Nail-Cain, Arthur Ronald N.


Briscoe, Capt. Richard George
Guinness, Thomas L. E. B.
Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.


Broadbent, Colonel John
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Newton, Sir Douglas George, C.


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Guy, J. C. Morrison
Nicholson, Rt. Hn. W. G. (Petersf'ld)


Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd, Hexham)
Hales, Harold K.
North, Captain Edward T.


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Hall, Capt. W. D'Arcy (Brecon)
Nunn, William


Brown, Bring.-Gen. H. C. (Berks., Newb'y)
Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)
O'Connor, Terence James


Browne, Captain A. C.
Hamilton, Sir R. W. (Orkney & Ztl'nd)
O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh


Burton, Colonel Henry Walter
Hammersley, Samuel S.
Ormiston, Thomas


Butler, Richard Austen
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William G. A.


Cadogan, Hon. Edward
Hartington, Marquess of
Palmer, Francis Noel


Campbell, Edward Taswell (Bromley)
Hartland, George A.
Patrick, Colin M.


Carver Major William H.
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Peake, Captain Osbert


Cassels, James, Dale
Hasiam, Sir John (Bolton)
Pearson, William G.


Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Hellgers, Captain F. F. A.
Perkins, Walter R. D.


Cayzer, Sir Charles (Chester, City)
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Petherick, M.


Gazalet, Thelma (Islington, E)
Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)


Cazalet, Capt. V. A. (Chippenham)
Hoare, Lt-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.
Peto, Geoffrey K. (W'verh'pt'n, Bliston)


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord Hugh
Hornby, Frank
Pickford, Hon. Mary Ada


Chalmers, John Rutherford
Horsbrugh, Florence
Pike, Cecil F.


Chapman, Col. R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Howard, Tom Forrest
Potter John


Chotzner, Alfred James
Howitt, Dr. Alfred B.
Powell, Lieut.-Col. Evelyn G. H.


Christie, James Archibald
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Power, Sir John Cecil


Clarke, Frank
Hudson, Robert Spear (Southport)
Procter, Major Henry Adam


Clarry, Reginald George
Hunter, Dr. Joseph (Dumfries)
Raikes, Henry V. A. M.


Clayton Dr. George C.
Hunter, Capt. M. J. (Brigg)
Ramsay, Capt. A. H. M. (Midlothian)


Clydesdale, Marquess of
Hurd, Sir Percy
Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas W. H.
Ramsden, E.


Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Jackson, Sir Henry (Wandsworth, C.)
Ray, Sir William


Colville, John
James, Wing-Corn. A. W. H.
Rea, Walter Russell


Conant, R. J. E.
Jesson, Major Thomas E.
Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)


Cook, Thomas A.
Joel, Dudley J. Barnato
Reid, James S. C. (Stirling)


Copeland, Ida
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Reid, William Allan (Derby)


Courthope, Colonel Sir George L.
Jones, Lewis (Swansea, West)
Remer, John R.


Craddock, Sir Reginald Henry
Ker, J. Campbell
Rentoul, Sir Gervais, S.


Cranborne, Viscount
Kerr, Hamilton W.
Renwick, Major Gustav A.


Craven-Ellis, William
Kimball, Lawrence
Rhys, Hon. Charles Arthur U.


Crooke. J. Smedley
Kirkpatrick, William M.
Robinson, John Roland


Crookshank, Capt. H. C. (Gainsb'ro)
Knatchbull, Captain Hon. M. H. R.
Rosbotham, S. T.


Crossley, A. C.
Knox, Sir Alfred
Ross, Ronald D.


Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard
Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton
Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)


Culverwell, Cyril Tom
Latham, Sir Herbert Paul
Ruggles-Brise, Colonel E. A.


Curry, A. C.
Law, Sir Alfred
Salmon, Major Isidore


Dalkeith, Earl of
Law, Richard K. (Hull, S.W.)
Samuel, Sir Arthur Michael (F'nham)


Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Leech, Dr. J. W.
Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwon)


Denville, Alfred
Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart


Dickie, John P.
Lennox-Boyd, A. T.
Sanderson, Sir Frank Barnard


Doran, Edward
Levy, Thomas
Savery, Samuel Servington


Dower, Captain A. V. G.
Lewis, Oswald
Scone, Lord


Drewe, Cedric
Liddall, Walter S.
Selley, Harry R.


Duckworth, George A. V.
Lindsay, Noel Ker
Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.


Dugdale, Captain Thomas Lionel
Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip Cunilffe-
Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)


Duggan, Hubert John
Loder, Captain J. de Vere
Shaw, Captain William T. (Forfar)




Sinclair, Maj. Ht. Hn. Sir A. (C'thness)
Stuart, Lord C. Crichton-
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Skelton, Archibald Noel
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray F.
Wedderburn, Henry James Scrymgeour-


Slater, John
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart
Wells, Sydney Richard


Smith, Sir Jonah W. (Barrow-In-F.)
Summersby, Charles H.
Weymouth, Viscount


Smith, R. W.(Ab'rd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)
Sutcliffe, Harold
White, Henry Graham


Smith-Carington, Neville W.
Tate, Mavis Constance
Whiteside, Borras Noel H.


Somervell, Donald Bradley
Taylor, Vice-Admiral E.A.(P'dd'gt'n, S.)
Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)


Somerville, Annesley A. (Windsor)
Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)
Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)


Soper, Richard
Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles
Wills, Wilfrid D.


Sotheron-Estcourt, Captain T. E.
Thorp, Linton Theodore
Wilson, Clyde T. (West Toxteth)


Spencer, Captain Richard A.
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Spender-Clay, Rt. Hon. Herbert H.
Todd, Capt. A. J. K. (B'wick-on-T.)
Withers, Sir John James


Stanley, Lord (Lancaster, Fylde)
Train, John
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir H. Kingsley


Stanley Hon. O. F. G. (Westmorland)
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement
Wood, Sir Murdoch McKenzie (Banff)


Stevenson, James
Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon
Worthington, Dr. John V.


Stones, James
Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey)
Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (S'v'noaks)


Storey, Samuel
Wallace, John (Dunfermline)



Strauss, Edward A.
Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Strickland, Captain W. F.
Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)
Mr. Womersley and Commander


Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)
Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.
Southby.




NOES.


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South)
Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton)
Milner, Major James


Attlee, Clement Richard
Hirst, George Henry
Molson, A. Hugh Eisdale


Briant, Frank
Holdsworth, Herbert
Parkinson, John Allen


Buchanan, George
Janner, Barnett
Price, Gabriel


Burnett, John George
Jenkins, Sir William
Rathbone, Eleanor


Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Salter, Dr. Alfred


Cripps, Sir Stafford
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Thorne, William James


Daggar, George
Kirkwood, David
Tinker, John Joseph


Davies. Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George
Wallhead, Richard C.


Eady, George H.
Lawson. John James
Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah


Edwards, Charles
Leonard, William
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Foot, Dingle (Dundee)
Logan, David Gilbert
Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)


Fremantle, Sir Francis
Lunn, William
Williams, Dr. John H. (Lianelly)


George, Megan A. Lloyd (Anglesea)
Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)
Williams, Thomas (York., Don Valley)


Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur
Maclay, Hon. Joseph Paton



Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)
Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Mallalieu, Edward Lancelot
Mr. Groves and Mr. John.


Grundy, Thomas W.
Maxton, James

Mr. GREENWOOD: I beg to move, in page 5, line 26, after the word "resolution," to insert the words:
applying to any land not within the district or, as the case may be, districts aforesaid.

Question put, "That those words be there inserted."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 40; Noes, 313.

[Division No. 216.
AYES.
[6.45 p.m.


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South)
Hirst, George Henry
Price, Gabriel


Attlee, Clement Richard
Jenkins, Sir William
Rathbone, Eleanor


Buchanan, George
John, William
Salter, Dr. Alfred


Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Thorne, William James


Cripps, Sir Stafford
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Tinker, John Joseph


Daggar, George
Kirkwood, David
Wallhead, Richard C.


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Edwards, Charles
Lawson, John James
Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)


George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
Leonard, William
Williams, Dr. John H. (Lianelly)


George, Megan A. Lloyd (Anglesea)
Logan, David Gilbert
Williams, Thomas (York, Don Valley)


Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur
Lunn, William



Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)
Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Maxton, James
Mr. Groves and Mr. Gordon


Grundy, Thomas W.
Milner, Major James
Macdonald


Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton)
Parkinson, John Allen



NOES.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Atkinson, Cyril
Blaker, Sir Reginald


Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds, W.)
Bailey, Eric Alfred George
Bossom, A. C.


Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.
Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Boulton, W. W.


Aitchison, Rt. Hon. Cralgie M.
Baldwin-Webb, Colonel J.
Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart


Albery, Irving James
Balniel, Lord
Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.


Allen, Sir J. Sandeman (Liverp'l, W.)
Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Bracken, Brendan


Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'k'nh'd.)
Barton, Capt. Basil Kelsey
Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough)


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Beaumont, M. W. (Bucks., Aylesbury)
Briant, Frank


Apsley, Lord
Beaumont, Hon. R.E.B. (Portsm'th, C.)
Briscoe, Capt. Richard George


Aske, Sir Robert William
Belt, Sir Alfred L.
Broadbent, Colonel John


Astbury, Lieut.-Com. Frederick Wolfe
Bennett, Capt. Sir Ernest Nathaniel
Brocklebank, C. E. R.


Atholl, Duchess of
Bevan, Stuart James (Holbo[...]n)
Brown. Col. D, C. (N'th'l'd, Hexham)


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Hamilton, Sir R. W.(Orkney & Zetl'nd)
Nicholson, Rt. Hn. W. G. (Peterst'ld)


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks., Newb'y)
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
North, Captain Edward T.


Browne, Captain A. C.
Hartington, Marquess of
Nunn, William


Burnett, John George
Hartland, George A.
O'Connor, Terence James


Burton, Colonel Henry Walter
Harvey, George (Lambeth, Kenningt'n)
O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh


Cadogan, Hon. Edward
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Ormiston, Thomas


Campbell, Edward Taswell (Bromley)
Haslam, Sir John (Bolton)
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William G. A.


Carver, Major William H.
Hellgers, Captain F. F. A.
Palmer, Francis Noel


Cassels, James Dale
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Patrick, Colin M.


Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller
Peake, Captain Osbert


Cayzer, Sir Charles (Chester, City)
Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.
Pearson, William G.


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord Hugh
Holdsworth, Herbert
Perkins, Walter R. O.


Chalmers, John Rutherford
Hornby, Frank
Petherick, M.


Chapman, Col. R.(Houghton-le-Spring)
Horobin, Ian M.
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)


Chotzner, Alfred James
Horsbrugh, Florence
Peto, Geoffrey K.(W'verh'pt'n, Bilst'n)


Christie, James Archibald
Howitt, Dr. Alfred B.
Pickford, Hon. Mary Ada


Clarke, Frank
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Pike, Cecil F.


Clarry, Reginald George
Hudson, Robert Spear (Southport)
Potter, John


Clayton, Dr. George C.
Hume, Sir George Hopwood
Powell, Lieut.-Col. Evelyn G. H.


Clydesdale, Marquess of
Hunter, Dr. Joseph (Dumfries)
Procter, Major Henry Adam


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Hunter, Capt. M. J. (Brigg)
Pybus, Percy John


Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Hurd, Sir Percy
Raikes, Henry V. A. M.


Colville, John
Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas W. H.
Ramsay, Capt A. H. M. (Midlothian)


Conant, R. J. E.
Jackson, Sir Henry (Wandsworth, C.)
Ramsay, T B. W. (Western Isles)


Copeland, Ida
James, Wing-Com. A. W. H.
Ramsbotham, Herwald


Courthope, Colonel Sir George L.
Janner, Barnett
Ramsden, E.


Cranborne, Viscount
Jesson, Major Thomas E.
Ray, Sir William


Craven-Ellis, William
Joel, Dudley J. Barnato
Rea, Walter Ruasell


Crooke, J. Smedley
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)


Crooksnank, Capt. H. C. (Gainsb'ro)
Jones, Lewis (Swansea, West)
Reid, James S. C. (Stirling)


Croom-Johnson, R. P.
Ker, J. Campbell
Reid, William Allan (Derby)


Crossley, A. C.
Kerr, Hamilton W.
Remer, John R.


Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard
Kimball, Lawrence
Rentoul, Sir Gervals S.


Culverwell, Cyril Tom
Kirkpatrick, William M.
Renwick, Major Gustav A.


Curry, A. C.
Knatchbull, Captain Hon. M. H. R.
Rhys, Hon. Charles Arthur U.


Dalkeith, Earl of
Knox, Sir Alfred
Rosbotham, S. T.


Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton
Ross, Ronald D.


Denman, Hon. R. D.
Latham, Sir Herbert Paul
Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)


Denville, Alfred
Law, Sir Alfred
Ruggles-Brise, Colonel E. A.


Dickie, John P.
Law, Richard K. (Hull, S.W.)
Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter


Doran, Edward
Leech, Dr. J. W.
Russell, Hamer Field (Sheffield, B'tside)


Drewe, Cedric
Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Salmon, Major Isidore


Duckworth, George A. V.
Lennox-Boyd, A. T.
Salt, Edward W.


Dugdale, Captain Thomas Lionel
Levy, Thomas
Samuel, Sir Arthur Michael (F'nham)


Duggan, Hubert John
Lewis, Oswald
Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)


Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington, N.)
Liddall, Walter S.
Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart


Dunglass, Lord
Lindsay, Noel Ker
Sanderson, Sir Frank Barnard


Eales, John Frederick
Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip Cunilffe-
Savery, Samuel Servington


Eden, Robert Anthony
Loder, Captain J. de Vere
Scone, Lord


Elliot, Major Rt. Hon. Walter E.
Lovat-Fraser, James Alexander
Selley, Harry R.


Elliston, Captain George Sampson
Mabane, William
Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.


Elmley, Viscount
Mac Donald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham)
Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)


Emrys-Evans, P. V.
MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)
Shaw, Captain William T. (Forfar)


Entwistle, Cyril Fullard
McEwen, Captain J. H. F.
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John


Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare)
McKie, John Hamilton
Sinclair, Maj. Rt. Hn. Sir A.(C'thness)


Erskine-Bolst, Capt. C. C. (Bik'pool)
Maclay, Hon. Joseph Paton
Skelton, Archibald Noel


Essenhigh, Reginald Clare
McLean, Major Alan
Slater, John


Everard, W. Lindsay
McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)
Smiles, Lieut.-Col. Sir Walter D.


Fermoy, Lord
Macmillan, Maurice Harold
Smith, Sir Jonah W. (Barrow-In-F.)


Foot, Dingle (Dundee)
Makins, Brigadier-General Ernest
Smith, R. W. (Ab'rd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)


Foot, Isaac (Cornwall, Bodmin)
Mallalieu, Edward Lancelot
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Ford, Sir Patrick J.
Mander, Geoffrey le M.
Somervell, Donald Bradley


Fox, Sir Gifford
Manningham-Buller, Lt.-Col. Sir M.
Somerville, Annesley A. (Windsor)


Fraser, Captain Ian
Margesson, Capt. Henry David R.
Soper, Richard


Fuller, Captain A. G.
Marsden, Commander Arthur
Sotheron-Estcourt, Captain T. E.


Ganzoni, Sir John
Martin, Thomas B.
Spencer, Captain Richard A.


Gillett, Sir George Masterman
Mason, David M. (Edinburgh, E.)
Spender-Clay, Rt. Hon. Herbert H.


Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John
Stanley, Lord (Lancaster, Fylde)


Glossop, C. W. H.
Merriman, Sir F. Boyd
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westmorland)


Gluckstein, Louis Halle
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)
Stevenson, James


Glyn, Major Ralph G. C.
Milne, Charles
Stones, James


Goff, Sir Park
Mitchell, Harold P.(Br'tf'd & Chisw'k)
Storey, Samuel


Goldie, Noel B.
Mitcheson, G. G.
Strauss, Edward A.


Goodman, Colonel Albert W.
Molson, A. Hugh Eisdale
Strickland, Captain W. F.


Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)
Moreing, Adrian C.
Stuart, Lord C. Crichton-


Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter
Morgan, Robert H.
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray F.


Grenfell, E. C. (City of London)
Morris, John Patrick (Salford, N.)
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart


Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John
Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)
Summersby, Charles H.


Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro', W.)
Morrison, William Shepherd
Sutcliffe, Harold


Guinness, Thomas L. E. B.
Moss, Captain H. J.
Tate, Mavis Constance


Gunston, Captain D. W.
Mulrhead, Major A. J.
Taylor, Vice-Admiral E. A. (P'dd'gt'n, S.)


Guy, J. C. Morrison
Munro, Patrick
Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)


Hales, Harold K.
Nail-Cain, Arthur Ronald N.
Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles


Hall, Capt. W. D'Arcy (Brecon)
Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.
Thorp, Linton Theodore


Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)
Newton, Sir Douglas George C.
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of




Todd, Capt. A. J. K. (B'wick-on-T.)
Wedderburn, Henry James Scrymgeour.
Withers, Sir John James


Train, John
Wells, Sydney Richard
Wood, Sir Murdoch McKenzie (Banff)


Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement
Weymouth, Viscount
Worthington, Dr. John V.


Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey)
White, Henry Graham
Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (S'v'noaks)


Wallace, John (Dunfermilne)
Whiteside, Borras Noel H.



Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)
Williams, Charlas (Devon, Torquay)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)
Wills, Wilfrid D.
Mr. Womersley and Commander


Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.
Wilson, Clyde T. (West Toxteth)
Southby.


Waterhouse, Captain Charles
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George

Sir H. YOUNG: I beg to move, in page 6, line 41, at the end, to insert the words:
(b) In giving his approval to a resolution under the last foregoing Sub-section and in making an order thereunder the Minister shall by the imposition of conditions or, as the case may be, by the terms of his order secure that—

(i) any person whose property has been injuriously affected by reason that since the commencement of this Act the Minister has refused, on an appeal made to him under an interim development order, to grant an application for permission to develop the property or that the Minister has imposed any conditions on the grant of an application made since that date; and
(ii) any person who, for the purpose of complying with any conditions imposed on the grant of such an application, has since the commencement of this Act incurred expenditure which is rendered abortive by the revocation of the resolution to prepare a scheme;

shall be entitled, if he makes a claim for the purpose within twelve months from the date when the resolution is approved or the order is made, as the case may be, to claim compensation from such authority as may be specified in the condition or order.
Provided that the Minister shall not secure a right to compensation in respect of any injurious affection of property arising from refusal to permit any development, or from the imposition of any conditions where he is satisfied that, if a scheme had come into operation containing provisions which would have had the effect of prohibiting that development, or under which those conditions could have been enforced, no right to compensation would have arisen under this Act in respect of the injurious affection of the property by the coming into operation of those provisions.
To anyone who may suspect that there is more in this Amendment than meets the eye, I would say that it is a very simple matter. It is part of the machinery for carrying out that arrangement as regards compensation during the interim period which I fully described to the House at an earlier stage. The criticism was made that it was unfair that anyone should be deprived of compensation where, after a resolution to prepare a scheme had been passed, a
restriction had been imposed upon which a claim to compensation could normally be based and subsequently the resolution had to be negatived so that the scheme had never come into force. This Amendment provides that in such a case the right to claim compensation, which would have accrued, shall not be lost by the revocation of the resolution. The Amendment is just a working-out of that position, which I believe will commend itself to the Committee as being obviously fair. There are two Amendments to the proposed Amendment standing in the name of the hon. and learned Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps). In line 3, to leave out from the word "order," to the end of line 12, and to insert instead thereof the words:
Provide that any person who, after the date of the passing of this Act—

(i) has appealed to the Minister under Sub-section (3) of Section sixteen of this Act and whose appeal has been dismissed or allowed subject to conditions and whose property has been injuriously affected thereby; or
(ii) has incurred expenditure in complying with any such conditions, which expenditure has been rendered abortive by such resolution or order as aforesaid."

To leave out lines 16 to 22, and to insert instead thereof, the words:
Provided that no such provision shall extend to entitle any person to compensation in respect of any such injurious affection as aforesaid in any case where the prohibition of development or imposition of conditions are of such a character that they would not have entitled such person to compensation if a scheme containing provisions which would have had the effect of prohibiting such development or authorising the imposition of such conditions had come into operation.
There may be points in those Amendments which commend themselves to the Committee, but I suggest, with the consent of the hon. and learned Member that instead of their being disposed of now I should undertake to give consideration to them with a view to their being accepted, subject to any necessary drafting alterations, in another place.

Mr. GREENWOOD: My hon. and learned Friend the Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps) asked me to say that he is agreeable to that course.

Amendment agreed to.

Motion made, and Question put, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 310; Noes, 41.

Division No. 217.]
AYES.
[6.59 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Duckworth, George A. V.
Knox, Sir Alfred


Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds, W.)
Dugdale, Captain Thomas Lionel
Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton


Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.
Duggan, Hubert John
Latham, Sir Herbert Paul


Aitchison, Rt. Hon. Cralgle M.
Duncan, James A. L.(Kensington, N.)
Law, Sir Alfred


Albery, Irving James
Dunglass, Lord
Law, Richard K. (Hull, S.W.)


Allen, Sir J. Sandeman (Liverp'l, W.)
Eales, John Frederick
Leech, Dr. J. W.


Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'k'nh'd.)
Eden, Robert Anthony
Leighton, Major B. E. P.


Aske, Sir Robert William
Elliot, Major Rt. Hon. Walter E.
Lennox-Boyd, A. T.


Astbury, Lieut.-Com. Frederick Wolfe
Elliston, Captain George Sampson
Levy, Thomas


Atholl, Duchess of
Elmley, Viscount
Lewis, Oswald


Bailey, Eric Alfred George
Emrys Evans, P. V.
Liddall, Walter S.


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Entwistle, Cyril Fullard
Lindsay, Noel Ker


Baldwin-Webb, Colonel J.
Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare)
Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip Cunilffe-


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Erskine-Bolst, Capt. C. C. (Blackpool)
Loder, Captain J. de Vere


Balniel, Lord
Essenhigh, Reginald Clare
Lovat-Fraser, James Alexander


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Everard, W. Lindsay
Lumloy, Captain Lawrence R.


Barton, Capt. Basil Kelsey
Foot, Dingle (Dundee)
Mabane, William


Beaumont, M. W. (Bucks., Ayiesbury)
Foot, Isaac (Cornwall, Bodmin)
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham)


Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'th. C.)
Ford, Sir Patrick J.
MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)


Bennett, Capt. Sir Ernest Nathaniel
Fox, Sir Gilford
McEwen, Captain J. H. F.


Bevan, Stuart James (Holborn)
Fraser, Captain Ian
McKeag, William


Blaker, Sir Reginald
Fremantle, Sir Francis
McKie, John Hamilton


Bossom, A. C.
Fuller, Captain A. G.
Maclay, Hon. Joseph Paton


Boulton, W. W.
Ganzoni, Sir John
McLean, Major Alan


Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart
Gillett, Sir George Masterman
McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)


Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Macmillan, Maurice Harold


Bracken, Brendan
Glossop, C. W. H.
Makins, Brigadier-General Ernest


Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough)
Gluckstein, Louis Halle
Mallalieu, Edward Lancelot


Briant, Frank
Glyn, Major Ralph G. C.
Mander, Geoffrey le M.


Briscoe, Capt. Richard George
Goff, Sir Park
Margesson, Capt. Henry David R.


Broadbent, Colonel John
Goldie, Noel B.
Marsden, Commander Arthur


Brockiebank, C. E. R.
Goodman, Colonel Albert W.
Martin, Thomas B.


Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)
Gower, Sir Robert
Mason, David M. (Edinburgh, E.)


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)
Mason, Col. Glyn K. (Croydon, N.)


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks., Newb'y)
Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter
Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John


Browne, Captain A. C.
Grenfell, E. C. (City of London)
Merriman, Sir F. Boyd


Burnett, John George
Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)


Cadogan, Hon. Edward
Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro', W.)
Milne, Charles


Campbell, Edward Taswell (Bromley)
Guinness, Thomas L. E. B.
Mitchell, Harold P. (Br'tt'd & Chisw'k)


Carver, Major William H.
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Mitcheson, G. G.


Cassels, James Dale
Guy, J. C. Morrison
Molson, A. Hugh Eisdale


Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Hales, Harold K.
Monsell, Rt. Hon. Sir B. Eyres


Cayzer, Sir Charles (Chester, City)
Hall, Capt. W. D'Arcy (Brecon)
Moreing, Adrian C.


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord Hugh
Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)
Morgan, Robert H.


Chalmers, John Rutherford
Hamilton, Sir R. W.(Orkney & Ztl'nd)
Morris, John Patrick (Salford, N.)


Chapman, Col. R.(Houghton-le-Spring)
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)


Chotzner, Alfred James
Hartland, George A.
Morrison, William Shepherd


Christie, James Archibald
Harvey, George (Lambeth, Kenn'gt'n)
Moss, Captain H. J.


Clarke, Frank
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Muirhead, Major A. J.


Clarry, Reginald George
Haslam, Sir John (Bolton)
Munro, Patrick


Clayton, Dr. George C.
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Nail, Sir Joseph


Clydesdale, Marquess of
Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller
Nail-Cain, Arthur Ronald N.


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Holdsworth, Herbert
Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.


Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Hornby, Frank
Newton, Sir Douglas George C.


Colville, John
Horobin, Ian M.
Nicholson, Rt. Hn. W. G. (Petersf'ld)


Conant, R. J. E.
Horsbrugh, Florence
North, Captain Edward T.


Copeland, Ida
Howitt, Dr. Alfred B.
Nunn, William


Courtauld, Major John Sewell
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
O'Connor, Terence James


Courthope, Colonel Sir George L.
Hudson, Robert Spear (Southport)
O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh


Cranborne, Viscount
Hume, Sir George Hopwood
Ormiston, Thomas


Craven-Ellis, William
Hunter, Capt. M. J. (Brigg)
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William G. A.


Crooke, J. Smedley
Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas W. H.
Palmer, Francis Noel


Crookshank, Capt. H. C. (Gainsb'ro)
Jackson, Sir Henry (Wandsworth, C.)
Patrick, Colin M.


Croom-Johnson, R. P.
James, Wing-Corn. A. W. H.
Peake, Captain Osbert


Crossley, A. C.
Janner, Barnett
Pearson, William, G.


Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard
Jesson, Major Thomas E.
Petherick, M.


Culverwell, Cyril Tom
Joel, Dudley J. Barnato
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)


Curry, A. C.
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Peto, Geoffrey K. (W'verh'pt'n, Bilston)


Dalkeith, Earl of
Jones, Lewis (Swansea, West)
Picktord, Hon. Mary Ada


Denman, Hon. R. D.
Ker, J. Campbell
Pike, Cecil F.


Denville, Alfred
Kerr, Hamilton W.
Potter, John


Dickie, John P.
Kimball, Lawrence
Powell, Lieut.-Col. Evelyn G. H.


Doran, Edward
Kirkpatrick, William M.
Power, Sir John Cecil


Drewe, Cedric
Knatchbull, Captain Hon. M. H. R.
Procter, Major Henry Adam


Pybus, Percy John
Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)
Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles


Raikes, Henry V. A. M.
Shaw, Captain William T. (Forfar)
Thorp, Linton Theodore


Ramsay, Capt. A. H. M. (Midlothian)
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)
Sinclair, Maj. Rt. Hn. Sir A.(C'thness)
Todd, Capt. A. J. K. (B'wick-on-T.)


Ramsbotham, Herwald
Skelton, Archibald Noel
Train, John


Ramsden, E.
Slater, John
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Ray, Sir William
Smiles, Lieut.-Col. Sir Walter D.
Vaughan Morgan, Sir Kenyon


Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)
Smith, Sir Jonah W. (Barrow-In-F.)
Wallace, John (Dunfermline)


Reid, James S. C. (Stirling)
Smith, R. W. (Ab'rd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)
Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Reid, William Allan (Derby)
Smith-Carington, Neville W.
Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)


Remer, John R.
Somervell, Donald Bradley
Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.


Rentoul, Sir Gervais S.
Somerville, Annesley A. (Windsor)
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Renwick, Major Gustav A.
Soper, Richard
Wedderburn, Henry James Scrymgeour-


Rhys, Hon. Charles Arthur U.
Sotheron-Estcourt, Captain T. E.
Wells, Sydney Richard


Rosbotham, S. T.
Spears, Brigadier-General Edward L.
Weymouth, Viscount


Ross, Ronald D.
Spencer, Captain Richard A.
Whiteside, Borras Noel H.


Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)
Spender-Clay, Rt. Hon. Herbert H.
Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)


Ruggles-Brise, Colonel E. A.
Stanley, Lord (Lancaster, Fylde)
Wills, Wilfrid D.


Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter
Stanley Hon. O. F. G. (Westmorland)
Wilson, Clyde T. (West Toxteth)


Russell, Hamer Field (Sheffield, B'tside)
Stevenson, James
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Salmon, Major Isidore
Stones, James
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Salt, Edward W.
Storey, Samuel
Withers, Sir John James


Samuel, Sir Arthur Michael (F'nham)
Strauss, Edward A.
Womersley, Walter James


Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)
Strickland, Captain W. F.
Wood, Sir Murdoch McKenzie (Banff)


Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray F.
Worthington, Dr. John V.


Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart
Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (S'v'noaks)


Sanderson, Sir Frank Barnard
Summersby, Charles H.



Savery, Samuel Servington
Sutcliffe, Harold
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Scone, Lord
Tate, Mavis Constance
Major George Davies and Commander Southby.


Selley, Harry R.
Taylor, Vice-Admiral E. A. (P'dd'gt'n, S.)



Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.
Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)



NOES.


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South)
Hirst, George Henry
Price, Gabriel


Attlee, Clement Richard
Jenkins, Sir William
Rathbone, Eleanor


Buchanan, George
John, William
Salter, Dr. Alfred


Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Slivertown)
Thorne, William James


Cripps, Sir Stafford
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Tinker, John Joseph


Daggar, George
Kirkwood, David
Wallhead, Richard C.


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George
Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah


Edwards, Charles
Lawson, John James
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
Leonard, William
Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)


George, Megan A. Lloyd (Anglesea)
Logan, David Gilbert
Williams, Dr. John H. (Lianelly)


Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur
Lunn, William
Williams, Thomas (York, Don Valley)


Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)
Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)



Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Maxton, James
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Grundy, Thomas W.
Milner, Major James
Mr. Gordon Macdonald and Mr. Groves.


Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)
Parkinson, John Allen



Bill read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee.

CLAUSE 17.—(Power to make orders for preservation of certain buildings.)

Sir G. HUME: I beg to move, in page 21, line 25, after the word "effect," to insert the words:
the Common Council of the City of London as respects the City of London or the London County Council as respects the county of London, or.
This Amendment and the other following Amendment to the same effect are consequential on the earlier Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 21, line 25, leave out the first word "county," and insert instead thereof the words "other county or the council of any."—[Sir G. Hume.]

CLAUSE 26.—(Acquisition of land for open spaces and playing fields in area covered by planning resolution.)

Amendment made: In page 37, line 32, after the word "and", insert the words "the Common Council of the City of London or".—[Sir G. Hume.]

Mr. CRAVEN-ELLIS: I beg to move, in page 37,, line 41, at the end, to add the words:
(2) In any case where after a resolution to prepare or adopt a scheme has taken effect and an application for permission to proceed with interim development of any land is refused by an authority on the ground that it is intended to reserve the land by the scheme as a public open space and the refusal is confirmed by the Minister on an appeal the owner of the land shall be entitled to require the authority to purchase the land within six months after the date of refusal at a price to be agreed between the owner and the authority or, failing agreement, to be determined by the arbitration of such person as may be agreed
upon or, in default of agreement, appointed by the Minister.
This Amendment refers to land which is included in a resolution as scheduled for the purposes of public open spaces, and which comes in an entirely different category from any other land which is within the same resolution. I am asking in this Amendment that, if the owner of land which is scheduled as a public open space is refused an interim development order and that decision is confirmed by the Ministry of Health, the local authorities should be compelled to purchase the land at its proper price. Under the old Act, when land was scheduled in this way, the owner did not get his money for the land, nor did he get compensation until the scheme was approved, which might be long after. This is only introducing justice between the local authority and the property owner.

Sir H. YOUNG: The principle of this Amendment is unobjectionable. It is only a minor extension of Clause 18 (2). I propose to accept the principle of the Amendment, but its place in the Bill is wrong, and the draft is not in the appropriate form. I will put it in the appropriate form in another place.

Sir S. CRIPPS: I should have thought that this was a most vicious Amendment from the Minister's point of view, and I am very surprised that he is prepared to accept it. It is introducing a new principle as regards compensation, which can be very easily wangled by any owner who wishes to do so. All he has got to do, where he is certain that the land is to be used as an open space, is to ask for an interim development order, knowing perfectly well that it will be refused. By so doing he is going to cash in the whole price of the open space, which normally he would not be able to do. The right hon. Gentleman, by accepting the principle of this Amendment, is putting such an onus on local authorities as will effectively stop local authorities having open spaces. Nothing is more calculated to stop the most desirable adjunct of the town planning scheme, a sufficiency of open spaces, than an Amendment of this sort. Local authorities with a desire for economy, which is the desire of the hon. Members who have put down this Amendment, although they do not wish any economy in compensation—

Captain WATERHOUSE: Not economy at the expense of confiscation.

Sir S. CRIPPS: This is no new procedure. It is a procedure which has been going on for 23 years in this country in regard to compensation. Now it is proposed to change it suddenly, for no apparent reason except the pressure put upon the right hon. Gentleman. The right hon. Gentleman cannot have appreciated the enormous harm which this Amendment will do as regards the provision of open spaces. I can imagine nothing more calculated to stop the provision of adequate open spaces than this quite unfair provision as regards a local authority. The matter has often been dealt with by the House of Commons before, but never in this way, and I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will reconsider his decision to insert such a provision.

Mr. M. BEAUMONT: I rise to refute the perfectly absurd suggestions put forward by the hon. and learned Gentleman. The only purpose of this Amendment is to say that an owner shall not be saddled with land which he is not allowed to use and which is to be open to the public. The compensation which is given in such cases is always, and must always be, tantamount to the whole value of the land. It simply says that when a town planning scheme includes a provision for a public open space which removes the whole of the value of the land from the owner, and when as the Bill originally stood compensation of the whole value of the land would have to be paid for the convenience both of the local authority and of the owner, the ownership of the land should pass into the hands of the local authority. It is not in the least likely to prevent the provision of open spaces. On the contrary, it is likely to facilitate very much the agreement between the owners and the local authorities in their provision.

Amendment negatived.

CLAUSE 44.—(Expenses of, and borrowing by, local authorities.)

Amendments made: In page 49, line 39, after the word "defrayed," insert the words:
in the case of the Common. Council of the City of London as expenses of that council chargeable to the general rate of that city.

In page 50, line 18, at the end, insert the words:
Provided further that any expenses properly incurred in or in connection with the preparation or carrying into execution of a scheme made by the Common Council of the City of London where such scheme is conseqential upon a scheme made by the London County Council in respect of a part of the county of London and forms part of a general proposal for planning an area comprising land in the City of London and land in the County of London shall be defrayed by the London County Council as expenses for general county purposes, and any difference between the said Common Council and the London County Council under this proviso shall be referred to and determined by the Minister.

In line 20, at the end, insert the words:
(a) in the case of the Common Council of the City of London under the City of London Sewers Acts, 1848 to 1897."—[Sir G. Hume.]

CLAUSE 45.—(Special provisions as to the administrative county of London.)

Amendments made: In page 52, line 1, leave out Sub-section (4), and insert instead thereof the words:
(4) The London County Council shall consult with the Common Council of the City of London with respect to any of the following matters in so far as they affect or are likely to affect any scheme made or adopted or any resolution to prepare or adopt a scheme which has been passed or is proposed to be passed by the Common Council of the City of London, that is to say:

(a)any proposal for a resolution to prepare a scheme or to revoke a resolution to prepare or adopt a scheme;
(b) the preparation of any scheme which they propose to make;
(c)the examination of any scheme which they propose to adopt;

and the Common Council shall consult with the London County Council in such matters in so far as they affect or are likely to affect any scheme made or adopted or any resolution to prepare or adopt a scheme which has been passed or is proposed to be passed by the London County Council.

In line 22, leave out the word "administrative," and insert instead thereof the words "City of London and the."

In line 29, leave out the words "or by the Common Council of the City of London."

In line 35, leave out from "1893," to the end of the Sub-section.—[Sir G. Hume.]

CLAUSE 49.—(Interpretation.)

Amendments made: In page 55, line 39, after the word "means," insert the words:
in relation to the Common Council of the City of London, the City of London, in relation to the London County Council, the county of London, and.

In line 39, leave out the word "a," and insert instead thereof the words "any other."—[Sir G. Hume.]

NEW CLAUSE.—(Power to contribute towards expenses of owners in connection with the proposal of schemes.)

It shall be lawful for a local authority or joint committee to contribute towards the expenses incurred by owners of land in or in connection with the proposal of a scheme which is adopted by the local authority or joint committee or in co-operating with them in the preparation of a scheme.—[Sir E. Young.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Sir H. YOUNG: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
This is a new Clause on a small matter to meet a reasonable suggestion that was made in Committee. The suggestion was that when owners co-operate in preparing a scheme, or themselves prepare a scheme, it should be within the power of the local authority to make a contribution towards the expenses. The Committee will observe that it is optional with the local authority whether they do so or not. It may be a reasonable thing for them to do, and will facilitate the cooperation between the owners and the authorities in the preparation of schemes.

Clause added to the Bill.

SIXTH SCHEDULE.—(Adaptations and modifications of this Act in its application to Scotland.)

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Mr. Skelton): I beg to move, in page 75, line 10, to leave out
from the word "words," to the word "there," in line 11, and to insert instead thereof the words:
the Common Council of the City of London as respects the City of London, or the London County Council as respects the county of London, or the council of any other county, or the council of any county borough or county district.
This is purely a drafting Amendment. We have just put in to Clause 17 a reference to the Common Council of the City of London in relation to the preservation of buildings. Any reference to the Common Council is unnecessary, and this Amendment is to remove it.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. SKELTON: I beg to move, in page 75, to leave out lines 21 to 26, and to insert instead thereof the words:
Section 21.—For Sub-section (11) there shall be substituted the following Subsection:
(11) In this Section the expression 'disposition' means a disposition by way of feu or sale (including a sale in consideration of a ground, annual, or other similar periodical payment) or the grant of a lease or tack for a period of not less than three years, and references to the person who gives a notice under Sub-section (1) of this Section shall, where the property to which the notice relates has, since the notice was given, been the subject of transmission otherwise than by disposition, be construed as references to the person to whom the property was last so transmitted before the date on which a disposition takes effect or a change of use takes place.
This is little more than a drafting Amendment, and I want to say one word Upon it. The Committee will remember that Clause 21 now includes with regard to betterment the use of the word "disposition." It is necessary in regard to that word to have the Scottish definition of the word in the Scottish Act instead of the English definition, which is in Clause 21. The words which I now wish to insert are the proper Scottish definition of the word "disposition."

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 75, line 42, after the word "words," insert the words "the Common Council of the City of London or."—[Mr. Skelton.]

Mr. SKELTON: I beg to move, in page 76, line 14, to leave out from the word "words," to the end of line 22, and to insert instead thereof the words:
and if the agreement shall have been recorded in the appropriate register of sasines, it shall be enforceable at the instance of the authority against persons deriving title to the land from the person with whom it was entered into:
Provided that no such agreement shall at any time be enforceable against a third party who shall have in bona fide onerously acquired right (whether completed by infeftment or not) to the land prior to the agreement being recorded as aforesaid or against any person deriving title from such third party.
The question at issue here is the proper inspection of purchase of land which has been subjected to previous agreements between the owner and the local authority. It is wholly unnecessary for me to say that to have kept this particular provision in complete consonance with the law of Scotland has been a matter of some difficulty. The form of words originally used in the Bill of last Session was this Session thought to be unsatisfactory. I suggested an alteration in the Committee stage, and from that alteration further improvements are now made.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. SKELTON: I beg to move, in page 78, to leave out lines 27 to 36, and to insert instead thereof the words:
(3) The provisions of the Second Schedule to the Rating (Scotland) Act, 1926, and of paragraph (i) of Sub-section (1) of Section seven of the Local Government (Scotland) Act, 1929, shall apply in relation to claims for compensation under this Act as they apply in relation to claims for compensation under those Acts subject to such modifications as the Secretary of State may by order provide for the purpose of adapting those provisions to cases arising under this Act.
This Amendment refers to Clause 46, which deals with the compensation to officers who may be displaced under the provisions of this Bill. I moved an Amendment in the Committee stage which the hon. Member for Central Wandsworth (Sir H. Jackson) thought was excessively wide, and discussion on the subject followed. I promised that I would reconsider the matter and put it in a different form. I am glad to say that he and I have come to an agreement, and I think that the form is now satisfactory.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. SKELTON: I beg to move, in page 79, column 2, to leave out lines 27 to 29, and to insert instead thereof the words:
For sub-paragraph (2) (a), (b), and (d) of paragraph 2 of Part I there shall be substituted respectively the following paragraphs:
(a) Sub-section (1) of section thirty-two of the Public Health (Scotland) Act, 1897; (b) Section one hundred and fifty-eight of the Burgh Police (Scotland) Act, 1892, as extended by Sub-section (2) (h) of Section one hundred and four of the Burgh Police (Scotland) Act, 1903;
(d) Section five of the Roads Improvement Act, 1925, as applied to Scotland by Section twelve of that Act; and sub-paragraph (2) (c) shall be omitted.
In paragraph 2 of Part II, and in paragraph 2 of Part III, after the words 'for the purpose,' there shall be inserted the words 'by summary petition.'
This Amendment is necessary in order to adapt the new form of the First Schedule. The Committee will recollect that a new First Schedule has been passed, and the passage of it has made it necessary for me to move certain drafting Amendments in regard to its application to Scotland.

Amendment agreed to.

Bill reported; as amended, on recommittal, considered.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."

7.30 p.m.

Mr. GREENWOOD: We have now arrived at the stage when we part company with this Bill, and I should like to congratulate hon. Gentlemen opposite on the success of their efforts; I am sorry that more of them are not here now. They have fought a very determined fight to make the Bill what it is. It is not the Bill that I should have liked to see myself, but at least they are to be congratulated on the success of their efforts. I do not myself, after to-day's decision in the House, recognise this emaciated child as the lusty infant that I introduced into the House only 15 months ago. It is perfectly true that it might have died altogether in the hands of those baby farmers to whom it was entrusted for so long by the right hon. Gentleman. The infant has survived, but at least it has suffered a certain measure of ill-treatment. Nor can I recognise, in the harsh
foster-parent of the little infant that I brought into the House, the sponsor of the Rural Amenities Bill, twice introduced by him into the House at a time when he enjoyed greater freedom and less responsibility than he does now.
That Bill was the Bill of a wild revolutionary. I remember that, when I read it, shivers ran down my spine at the terrific possibilities that that Bill held out of trouble in the House of Commons, trouble in another place, trouble in the Law Courts, trouble everywhere; but at least it was the Bill of a bold visionary, who on two occasions made most eloquent speeches in the House in defence of the beauties of the countryside and in defence of rural England. I had hoped that, at the hands of a successor with such a history in this matter, the Town and Country Planning Bill might have passed from here to another place as strong as it was when it was left by the Labour Government.
Unfortunately, it has been weakened during its rather hectic passage through Committee. The right hon. Gentleman seemed to think that I objected because the Bill had been amended, and he pointed out, quite rightly, that I in my turn had accepted a very large number of Amendments to the Bill last year as it was passing through its Committee stage. But the difficulty that I find with the Bill now is that, as one looks at it leaving us now for another place, it bears the marks of those destructive forces who, from its Second Reading down to this moment, have done their best to weaken and enfeeble it and to destroy its possibilities, with the result—I do not want to go into details—that in one way after another the Bill has been impaired. I feel—and this, I may say, is a great tribute to hon. Gentlemen on the third bench opposite—that, so far from the Bill ever having been strengthened in any particular as regards town planning powers, it has been weakened, and concessions have been made.
I am prepared to admit—I must admit—that, although the right hon. Gentleman has ill-treated the infant, it is still there, and the Bill, of course, is in many respects an advance on the existing law. That is where hon. Gentlemen on the third bench opposite have met their defeat. They wanted no Bill at all. They would have liked to sweep from the
Statute Book every law that touches town planning, as no doubt they would wish to sweep from the Statute Book every piece of legislation dealing with our local authorities. But, while it is true that the Bill does lead us some way along the road that we hoped to travel, it is idle to deny that, as it leaves us now for another place, a very large number of people—indeed, I can say all people who are actually working at the practical job of town planning—are left with a very deep sense of disappointment.
Here was a real opportunity for what is called a National Government. Here was a Bill which had already been sifted and examined and amended and approved by all responsible sections of the House in the last Parliament—a Measure on which a National Government might have set its seal and said, "Viewing our responsibilities as a National Government, rising"—as has been said so often—"above the mere filth of party politics, we will take this Bill, examined as it was last Session and agreed to by all responsible Members of all political parties, and we will put it on the Statute Book as it was left by the late Government." That would have been a proof of the national character of the Government. Unfortunately, that is not what has happened. All the objections to the Bill, all the efforts which have been made to weaken the Bill, have come from one quarter; they have come from that quarter of recalcitrant, unrepentent, diehard Tories so ably led by hon. Members who sit on the third bench opposite—a bench that will become immortal in the history of Parliament; a bench of men who, in the days of a National Government, thought it their duty to oppose a Bill which was supported by all national parties at the time.
If anybody wants proof that the diehard tail is wagging the national dog, they need only look at the restricted character of the Bill as it now stands, and compare it with the Bill as it was when it was introduced by the present Minister of Health. With the new limitations, with the new vexatious handicaps which have been introduced, with the efforts to put a brake upon the wheel of local authorities' endeavours, the greatest defect of the Bill, as I see it now, is with respect to the question, which has already been argued and which I cannot re-argue at this stage of the
Bill, of its curtailed powers. It is interesting to note that most of the speakers who followed the Minister after he had made his defence explained that they were not satisfied with his statement, that they felt that he had not removed the doubts from their minds; and there remains the great blot upon the Bill, which everyone connected with town planning would have liked to see removed, that planning powers have been curtailed.
The view of the right hon. Gentleman is that, as the Bill now stands, all conceivable cases where town planning is necessary will be covered. In that view he stands practically alone in the world. I have never had a letter—and I have had large numbers within the last two or three weeks—from anybody concerned directly or indirectly with local Government or town planning who does not feel that, as the Bill now stands, the Government have lost a great opportunity, and that the curtailment of powers and the curtailment of the scope of the Bill will prove to be a serious injury to the cause of town planning. The Bill, in fact, does not really embody the experience of people who have been engaged on this work, and it does not give the powers which are generally desired. If the right hon. Gentleman is right, and there is really nothing left to be desired in the way of further extension, why does he not say, "We will make it cover all land"? If it be true that all the land that is likely to be needed for development purposes, all the land that ought to be planned, is in the Bill, why does he not remove the suspicions of all the people who are engaged on this work by saying that the Act shall apply to all land? The answer can only be that he has made a real concession in the Bill as it leaves us now—a concession which has been due to the guerilla warfare of hon. Members who are assumed to be his supporters, but who have used their position to snipe him from behind.
The Bill, as I have said, misses a great opportunity. Town Planning Bills rarely come to this House. A Town Planning Bill is a complicated Measure. I have no doubt that the right hon. Gentleman realises—I realise it fully—that there is not going to be another Town Planning Bill for many years now. [Interruption.] I expected approval from hon Gentlemen opposite; I should
have been surprised if they had not approved of that statement. It is perfectly natural that they should not want another one. But there are large numbers of people who do want another one, and whose hopes are now deferred.
I am bound to admit that this Bill is a considerable advance, but I am bound to confess, as one who introduced this Bill originally into the House, and who had hoped to see it put on the Statute Book last year—I am bound to confess, and I think I am entitled to confess, a certain disappointment because a Bill which was approved so whole-heartedly by the Leaders of every party, and by all responsible people in every party, has been, I do not say destroyed, but substantially-weakened. I do not know whether it may come back with further Amendments; the chances are that it may; but we part with it now so far as serious argument is concerned, and I think I am speaking for the whole of our local authorities and their organisations, for the Council for the Preservation of Rural England, for the Royal Institute of British Architects, for all bodies who are associated with this work, when I say that, although they will welcome this Bill as an instalment, they are profoundly disappointed because the opportunity so magnificently given to the right hon. Gentleman has not been grasped by him, and they will have to look forward in some distant future for the day when their dreams will be realised.

Sir J. WALKER SMITH: When this Bill came before the House for its Second Reading, I considered that there were many provisions in it which were contrary to the public interest. It has been modified a good deal in its passage through Committee. As qualified, it is more cumbersome and somewhat more confusing, but I must admit that it is somewhat less objectionable than it was before. Even so, I am a little disappointed that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Greenwood) should have felt so ungrateful with regard to the Bill as it has come up for its Third Reading. I should have thought if there was anyone who should have been satisfied with it, that it was one who is perfervidly Socialistic in his outlook. To such a person I consider that the Bill should appear very satis-
factory and very desirable. Launched by the Government, precipitately, in the misguided belief that it would be mistaken for an innocuous Measure, I have no doubt that it will find its way on to the Statute Book. Nevertheless, I still think that the Bill as it stands has some fundamentally unsatisfactory features.
I propose to divide my observations on it into four categories. Firstly, there are those provisions which are typical of unwarrantable expenditure, not to say extravagance. Secondly, there are provisions which reveal the impossibility of the Measure effecting the desired purpose. Thirdly, there are provisions which constitute a very serious brake upon industry. Fourthly, there are provisions which tend to undue domination by the Government Department concerned as to the determination of questions affecting very vital and important interests by methods which are at the same time secret and arbitrary, and there are typical Clauses which provide means and methods for the use of a Government Department which are contrary to the principles of natural justice.
I propose to deal with the provisions within these four categories as succinctly and unobjectionably as I can. The first provision that involves unwarrantable expenditure and, I think, extravagance, is very appropriately the first Clause of the Bill, under which a town planning scheme may be made with respect to any land, whether there are or are not buildings thereon, with the general object of controlling development. This constitutes an enormous extension of the powers and duties of those responsible. It is a very considerable extension of the town planning powers already available in. respect of undeveloped land, now to be extended to the whole of the developed land in the country. The duties that are at present laid on the responsible authorities have involved the employment of very considerable and expensive staffs, which are now to be increased and multiplied. This controlling of the development of land built upon and unbuilt upon will most certainly require very considerable staffs, and these staffs will be engaged on what is termed controlling development. Controlling is, in my opinion, a euphemistic term which really means restricting, pro-
hibiting, and generally making it extremely difficult for anyone to build upon vacant land or to improve existing buildings or to build bigger and improved buildings upon vacant and Cleared sites.
Let us see who are the authorities charged with this very important and all-embracing work. The first executive authority mentioned in Clause 2 is the local authorities of the country. They do not need very much encouragement to cause them to appoint very considerable and expensive staffs, and, once appointed, they are never got rid of. Their partners in this matter are revealed in Clause 6. This is the beginning of the partnership between local authorities and the Ministry of Health, which the Minister termed a complex of planning authorities, who will be charged with these duties, which, I think, will consist in controlling the property of others and considerably restricting development. In Clause 7 one gets the first taste of the sort of thing that is going to happen. It provides for enormous numbers of notices, forms, registers, and all the paraphernalia of expensive local authority and governmental administration. Under Clause 10, the Minister of Health, according to this arrangement, gets busy with the making of general Orders and special Orders for the purpose of controlling, which is restricting, development. Under the same Clause, when such Orders have been made, they will provide that applications for the gracious permission of local authorities to permit the owner to build upon his own land will receive the consideration of the staff of the local authority, which may grant the application of the owner to build upon his own land with or without any such conditions as they may wish to impose, and so on, all involving very expensive administrative machinery.
Clause 11 involves the greatest amount of administrative costs in the preparation of the schemes themselves. Every scheme is to contain provisions for prohibiting or regulating development, and, in particular, for dealing with any of the matters mentioned in the Second Schedule. The Second Schedule contains elaborate provisions dealing with 21 items, and every scheme must contain provisions dealing with those items. I do not think there can be many in the House
who have ever seen a town-planning scheme. It is a most complicated measure. Each scheme is almost as long as this Bill and, in addition, there are a great number of maps and plans of all kinds. The amount of work involved in the preparation of these schemes will be considerable and the amount of staff required will be very great indeed, as great as it will be expensive. I believe in the Ministry of Health there are engaged on this work of town planning a staff of about 20. The cost of that, when one takes into consideration the proportional cost of the secretaries, the Accountant-General, solicitors, counsel, and the many charges of a large administrative Department, must be at least £1,000 per annum for each member. So far as the Ministry of Health is concerned, that represents a cost of about £20,000.
That is not so bad, except that there is a nucleus for galvanising into activity the local authorities throughout the country. One has had experience of the net result of the combination of a Government Department and the local authorities in the matter of education. One has Been that the education complex of the Government Department and the local authorities has resulted in an expenditure of something like £100,000,000 per annum. One has seen what I may term the road complex and what that has involved. The complex between the Minister of Transport and the local authorities in recent years has involved a capital expenditure of £500,000,000. These complexes of Government Departments and local authorities are not for the good of either the ratepayer or the taxpayer. There will be galvanised into existence large staffs in the large local authorities and smaller staffs in the smaller local authorities. One might very well say that there will be 500 local authorities engaged in town-planning operations. There will be about four members in each staff and they will involve an average cost of, say, £500 a year. The administrative costs of local authorities in respect of these operations is going to be £1,000,000 per annum. Then there will be similar expenses which will need to be incurred by owners of land in dealing with the local authorities, considering and preparing plans, entering into negotiations, legal costs, architects' costs and engineers' costs—no doubt, another £1,000,000.
It really is too bad at this time if we have any regard at all for economy. I have heard the Minister of Health castigate Members of the Opposition for their inappreciation of the economic necessities of the day, and yet he imposes these provisions upon us whereby the administrative costs of local authorities and the Government Department will be considerably increased. Should he not have consideration to the increase of Government administration and local authority administration in the last 40 years? The cost of national Government has increased from £79,000,000 to £890,000,000—nine-fold—and the cost of local government has increased from £66,000,000 to £420,000,000—seven-fold—and yet this Measure, which will involve us in considerable additional administrative costs to be borne by the rates and taxes, is foisted upon us.
8.0 p.m.
I pass to my next point. My second category includes those provisions which reveal, in my opinion, the impossibility of the Measure effecting its desired purpose. One has to consider again who are the parties to be charged with these particular duties. The local authorities will become the executive authorities for the purpose, while the Minister of Health, the partner in this concern, will be the approving autocracy. That is the partnership. If it were not very serious, it would be almost farcical to believe that this partnership can deal with the question of planning and re-planning the whole of the country. These are the bodies to be charged with the preservation of the amenities of this country which the private owners have created and which no one has done more to spoil than Government Departments and local authorities. The so-called ribbon development which is an objectionable feature, was caused and induced almost solely by the lack of imagination, forethought and ability of the Government Department concerned. The partnership of the Minister of Health and local authorities for the purpose of preserving and creating amenities is almost humorous. One Department of the Ministry of Health in the prescribing of most rigid by-laws, and the local authorities in their rigid administration of the by-laws have done more to prevent the creation of amenities in the country than
anything else I can possibly imagine. Local authorities have been compelled to comply with the by-laws and regulations prescribed by the Minister of Health. It has left them with no possibility of doing other than that which the rigorously applied by-laws permit, and that is the reason why the development of our cities and towns has been so unfortunate during the last 50 or 60 years.
This partnership will never be able to do the job which is set for them as it requires considerable imagination, initiative and forethought. These are qualities which neither of these partners possess. Indeed, they possess qualities which are quite the reverse. They will both be slaves to precedent. They will flog the garden suburb idea to death. Dull, tame and uninspiring—we shall have these piffling little garden suburbs all over the countryside. Those particular bodies—the Minister of Health and the: local authority—are possessed of what I might call a dual mentality, rigid and entirely inelastic. Is it conceivably possible that matters of this kind requiring imagination and a certain amount of enlightenment in regard to ideas can safely be left to the Ministry of Health? This is the particular body who, on account of their reactionary and unimaginative attitude towards new methods of construction, such as steel-frame buildings and reinforced concrete, have set back the hands of the clock for years and years. They would not modify their by-laws and regulations and realise that entirely new methods were required. That is the dominant body of the partnership set to re-plan the whole of the countryside. If it were not a very serious matter, it would be farcical.
I come to my third point, which is a reference to provisions which constitute a serious drag upon industry. I have already referred to the provisions which are required in town-planning schemes, but I have not referred yet to those which are required under Clause 12 of the Bill. The provisions required in a scheme may include provisions prescribing the space about buildings, limiting the number of buildings, regulating the size, height, design and elevation of buildings, imposing restrictions upon the manner in which buildings are to be used, and prohibiting building operations. There you have the
whole thing in a nut shell. These schemes are for prohibiting, limiting and restricting. It does not need very much imagination to see where that sort of thing is going to lead us.
I wonder if the Minister does not know—he certainly should know—that there are at the present time about 300,000 unemployed in the building industry. Nearly 30 per cent. of the total number engaged in this vast and important industry are unemployed. If ever there was a time when the brakes should be taken off the wheels of industry, this is the time. What do we get? We get this Bill which is to complex that it would baffle the astutest of brains. It will destroy the confidence of those who otherwise might, in due course, be tempted to commence more building operations. I do not speak for the building industry, but it must be obvious that all these restrictive measures will very seriously cripple an industry which has already been very severely dealt with.
My fourth and last duty is to refer to two or three provisions which typify the proposed undue domination of the Government Department concerned and the methods secret and autocratic by which the Minister determines questions affecting very great and vital interests. They are provisions which give, for the use of the Department concerned, certain methods and means which are contrary to the principles of natural justice. The first typical provision of the kind appears in Clause 4:
If it appears to the Minister to be expedient that two or more authorities, being local authorities or county councils, should act jointly.… he may,.… by order provide for the constitution of a joint committee for the purpose and transfer to the Committee any power..… for the purpose.
The object of the provision is to permit the county councils and larger local authorities to embrace the smaller local authorities when it is convenient for them to do so. That is the principle one will find a little further on in the Bill. Under Clause 32, Sub-section (2), the Minister may transfer to the county council powers to town plan the areas of all the local authorities with populations of less than 20,000. In this respect, the Minister reveals his policy. I observe that the Parliamentary Secretary shakes his head. But this does reveal the policy of the Minister, which is that of securing the
appointment of the chief administrative officers of county councils and large local authorities.

Notice taken that 40 Members were not present; House counted, and 40 Members being present—

Sir J. WALKER SMITH: I was remarking that it was well to remember that the policy of the Minister was to secure the appointment of the chief administrative officers of the local authorities upon the lines and the standards of the Civil Service, thus showing that in time the appointment of the administrative officers of the large local authorities is to be based upon the Civil Service. I find in Clause 5, Subsection (1), a further sample of the power which the Minister reserves to himself under the Bill. It reads in this way:
If at any time it appears to the Minister to be expedient that any such council or local authority who have not claimed to be represented on the joint committee—he may by order.…transfer to the committee such of the powers.… and duties of the said council or local authority as he thinks fit.
It is entirely in his discretion, and in that respect he has full arbitrary powers. Similarly, under Clause 6 which requires the Minister to be satisfied with regard to certain matters upon a resolution being passed by the local authority. But in this particular case, as in all other cases, it does not specify by what means, by what steps, and to what extent the Minister has to satisfy himself, and it certainly does not provide how the Minister is to satisfy anyone else. Is he to be satisfied by means of the local authority 2 It does not so say. Will he satisfy the public by some pronouncement of the grounds upon which he has been satisfied? Not at all. The whole proceedings savour of secrecy and autocracy. Also in Clause 6, Sub-section (4), the Minister
may, in giving his approval, vary the extent of the land to be included in the area to which the resolution is to apply.
That means to say, that he can increase the area or he can decrease the area to any extent he may think fit without giving any reasons or explanations to anyone whatever. Similarly, in Clause 8:
The Minister may approve any scheme either with or without modifications.
He can modify a scheme in any way he likes with certain reservations. There is
no reservation with regard to his power of modification as far as the owners' interest is concerned, but a little modification with regard to his arbitrary attitude towards his partner in this matter, the local authority. He reflects his arbitrary powers a little in relation to his partners, but not towards the public generally. So you find throughout the whole of the proposals instances of the enormous powers of the Ministry of Health and their methods of administration which are couched in terms of secrecy and studiously avoid any possibility of power of appeal. I think that I am entitled, in dealing with the powers of the Minister of Health, to take a look at the record of the Ministry of Health in matters of this kind, and for that purpose I refer to the Committee on Ministers' Powers, a report of which has just been issued. The Committee were dealing at one stage of their report with the Clauses of enactments that have acquired the nickname of Henry VIII Clauses, because that monarch is regarded popularly as an impersonation of executive autocracy. On page 123 of the report the Committee give some examples of the exercise of executive autocracy by that Tudor monarch. They found a considerable difficulty in discovering instances of that executive autocracy, but they seem to have managed to find 11 of them, and it is peculiar that of the 11 Henry VIII Clauses—

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Captain Bourne): I am unaware that Henry VIII is mentioned in this Bill. The hon. Member must only discuss what is in the Bill.

Sir J. WALKER SMITH: I was discussing the Minister of Health in regard to the Bill and I was about to say that it appears to me that the mantle of Henry VIII seems to have fallen upon the shoulders of the present Minister of Health. At that I will leave it. The method of the Ministry of Health in regard to these matters under this Bill are the very reverse from those that apply in a court of justice. In these particular matters one never gets face to face with one's judge. One does not even get an opportunity of considering the report of the inspector who holds the inquiry, with whom one does come face to face. There
is no power of appeal. The Minister gives no reasoned judgment, no grounds on which he has satisfied himself or on which he has given any order, judgment, decision or whatever he may be called upon to give. I submit that I have established the fact that the provisions of the Bill involve unwarrantable extravagance, that they will not affect the purposes desired, that they constitute a brake upon industry at a time when that is extremely undesirable, that they tend to undue domination by the Government Department concerned and that they give them powers which are certainly not in accord with the principles of natural justice.

Mr. TRAIN: I have listened with great interest to the hon. Member for Barrow-in-Furness (Sir J. Walker Smith), but I am not going to attempt to go over all the Clauses as he did. I should, however, like to mention one or two features of the Bill that appeal to me and one or two that do not appeal to me. I am very grateful and gratified that the Bill is in its present form. It is an entirely different Bill from that which was presented to us on Second Reading. It has been very much amended, and I must congratulate the Minister on his earnest desire to meet the Committee and to give confidence to those who ultimately will have the working of the Measure when it gets on to the Statute Book. He has had a very difficult and complicated task. There have been many conflicting interests at work. There have been the people who have been town planning all their lifetime in a practical way and have had to find the wages of the town planners and those who develop the land. There have been those who have great ideas about town planning, who have never had to pay one penny of wages to those who were developing the land and who would like to develop everybody's land in the way that they think fit and proper. There have been those who would like to protect historic monuments, and rightly so, and those with some sentiment about them. They have been talking as if nobody ever took an interest in such a question before. Apart from the great historic buildings, we have some very small and sentimental buildings. We Scotsmen are very proud of the cottage of Rabbie Burns.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: Robert Burns.

Mr. TRAIN: Rabbie Burns. We are proud of Carlyle's house at Craigenputten and his birthplace at Ecclefechan. We are proud of Livingstone's home in Blantyre. When we cross the border and come down to the Lake District we are proud to go in and have a look at Wordsworth's cottage and, further along, at Coniston we are proud of Ruskin's home. These places have been preserved long before town planning was ever spoken about by these theorists and sentimentalists. People have been thinking of, and taking a great interest in these things. In this Bill all these interests have had to be considered. There have been local authorities who, clad in a little brief authority, are jealous of the powers that they had had in the past and frightened that they will lose touch with those powers. We have had the small burghs, the big burghs and the county councils, some of them objecting to the Bill and some of them asking for greater powers under it. The Minister has met each one of these units. He knows more about their conflicting opinions than any single Member of the Committee could possibly know and, having considered all these interests, he has produced a Bill that I think will be workable.
It is not the Bill that I would like to see. As I said years ago in this House when the last Town Planning Bill was before us, the only proper way to town plan is by a watershed. I would ignore present boundaries. Having secured the watershed and got the contour of the land and the flow of the water, you get your water service and then you have the public health of the people secured and you get rid of all these small conflicting influences. We have had the optimists who tell us that they have great faith in this Bill and that it is going to bring works to the places that are town planned. They have told us that the places that have been town planned in the past are getting the new industries, and they have held out hopes to those who are going to town plan in the future that they will get a share of the new industries. I would like us to look at these things from a proper perspective. I do not see that by putting a few lines on a paper we are going to bring industries to those places that have not been town planned in the past. If we can be
shown the people who want to build factories, there will be no difficulty in getting the land agents or the factors to show them the proper places. Indeed, the Trade Development Board of Scotland will I am sure present them with works within 24 hours.
I hold out no hope that town planning is going to bring trade and industry to any part of the country. At the same time I am grateful that the Minister of Health has considered all these interests, although I think that the Government have missed a splendid opportunity of tackling town planning in a big way as a National Government; and that is the only right way in which it should be tackled, in a broad comprehensive way. The betterment Clause has given rise to much discussion. Having admitted the principle of betterment up to 50 per cent. in the 1929 Act, which in my opinion has some justification for it, I cannot see how you can justify a charge of 75 per cent. betterment, and I am wondering what effect it will have on the building trade. There is much unemployment in the building trade. There was a boom when houses were built by local authorities, and when they were being built by private enterprise for the owner-occupier, who was aided by building societies.
In Scotland our land system, our feuing system, and ground rents, is entirely different from anything on this side of the Border. The developer when he got his land made use of it as part of his scheme and financed it accordingly. If he put 10 houses to the acre at a cost of £5 it meant 10s. per house per annum. But supposing he says that as he is putting in a security worth £700 in these houses he will put a feu duty on each house of £6. That means that each of the houses costing £700 he can sell for £600, but that £5 feu duty is there in perpetuity. He can sell this to the investor and it is regarded as trustee stock in our country. The Church of Scotland is endowed by this system as well as benevolent institutions of all kinds. It is a great investment for the country in this way, that hundreds and thousands of these feu duties and ground rents in Scotland are the means by which the Chancellor of the Exchequer gets his Income Tax, to some extent, every year. It does not fluctuate as do profits in trade and industry; and it is the backbone of the
investor in our country. The purchaser gets into the house by the aid of a building society.
8.30 p.m.
What is going to be the effect of betterment? If a man is feuing it at its original price of £5 and he gets within a town planning area, as he is bound to do when development comes along, the local authority comes along and says, "We want 75 per cent. of the betterment." He is only left with 25 per cent. The developer will say that he is not going to put any more into it and will fix the price at the amount he paid for it. The purchaser of the house cannot afford to pay this, and consequently it will be only the moderately wealthy people who will be able to awn houses. It will have the effect of putting a brake on that class of building. It is not going to help the building trade at all, and I think the Minister would be well advised to look into this point. What is going to happen to the 75 per cent.? What is a local authority going to do? Is it going to be something from which the Chancellor of the Exchequer is going to get some Income Tax every year; is it going to be anything which will benefit the purchaser of the house, or which will help the building trade? What good is going to come of it? I admit that we do not want to see speculation in land for building purposes, but this is a legitimate business built up for the benefit of the trade and the occupier and owner of the house, and you will interfere with it and paralyse the industry. I am optimistic and probably the trade will adapt itself to circumstances, but in the meantime you are going to paralyse the industry. What happened in the old days? There is not a man in Scotland to-day who is building houses to let unless he is subsidised to the extent of £9 per house for a period of 40 years. Since 1909 no one has built a house to let except local authorities, and they have got the local builder to build houses for them instead of for himself; but at what a cost to the country. We were told the other day that the Government is paying £12,750,000 in subsidies and that we are bound to do this for 40 years, over and above what local authorities are paying. If you take the Addison scheme and the 1d. in the £, and the other schemes, the £3 scheme
and the £4 10s., it is at least £20,000,000 if it is a penny which is going towards the subsidising of these houses, which before were built by private enterprise, and may I say which were must better houses than the houses which are being built to-day. It comes to this that you are interfering with the houses built by the owner-occupier and doing no good for the building trade. That is the part of this Bill which wants examination. We have heard a tremendous lot about the bungaloid growth. Who is to blame for that? Most of it has been done by local authorities—

Sir F. FREMANTLE: Not down our way.

Mr. TRAIN: I am talking of what I have seen. There was never anything like this bungaloid growth built by private enterprise. [Interruption.]

Mr. KIRKWOOD: Who built the slums—private enterprise.

Mr. TRAIN: The slums of to-day are nothing like the slums which you will get from the houses that are being built under the subsidised schemes. I say that the older houses were better houses. The hon. Member for Dumbarton Burghs (Mr. Kirkwood) knows that round about Glasgow there are tenements built within the last 30 to 40 years, and that people prefer living in them to living in the houses that are being built to-day, good three- and four-apartment houses, with bathroom, and up-to-date in every way. If we had been left alone to go on with these houses it would have been better for the country. Our City Improvement Trust in Glasgow, which built these houses, pulled down the slums, and the houses are giving a return to Glasgow of 1½ per cent., whereas all the other houses are costing £3 10s. to the city and £9 to the State. I deprecate any interference with private enterprise. I am all for town planning on sound and sane lines. I congratulate the Minister of Health on his honest attempt to make the best of this Bill, and to meet the various conflicting interests that have been put up against him. He is the man who should be the judge, because he gets in writing and in representation information as to these interests, and information that the private Members cannot get. The Bill
is not the Bill that I would like to see, but we shall have other Bills, as we have had other Housing Acts from time to time. No doubt the next Minister of Health in a new Government will have another Town Planning Bill. I hope that I shall not be a Member of the Standing Committee that considers it, because we have had plenty of trouble with this Bill. I wish the Minister luck.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: I would not have taken part in the Debate but for the remarks that have fallen from the hon. Member for Cathcart (Mr. Train), who undoubtedly has sage experience as far as the building trade is concerned. The hon. Member has made a fortune out of the building trade, in his own day and generation, and he has made it all himself. He is one of the self-made men. You cannot make tens of thousands out of building houses without having "swanking" somewhere. But that is not what brought me to my feet. I have to pay the hon. Member the tribute that he understands the subject from his point of view, but certainly not from the point of view of the people who live in the houses that he built. The houses that private enterprise built were not built for people to live in; they were built by private enterprise in order that men like the hon. Member for Cathcart could make money out of them.
The hon. Member said something that he knows to be absolutely untrue, that is that the houses that were built by private enterprise for the working class in Scotland were better as built 30, 40 and 50 years ago. Has the hon. Member forgotten the hellish conditions in which the people, particularly the miners in the county of Lanark, have to live—single apartments and no sanitary conveniences at all? No one knows better than the hon. Member, the miners' row, back to back, 200 houses on either side, with no sanitary conveniences, not even a water-tap. He has seen them. His class of individuals built that type of house. Of course it is true that in Glasgow, as in other parts of Scotland, there are tenements that are three and four-apartment houses, but they are not for my class, they are not for the engineer, they were not for the hon. Member for Cathcart when he started as a stonemason. No stonemason and no engineer could live in a three-apartment tenement, never
mind a four-apartment tenement in Glasgow. No one knows better than the hon. Member that they were very very lucky if they were able to get a two-apartment house.
Like others, the hon. Member boasts of how many in family they were, how his mother brought up seven on such a small wage. They should think shame on themselves. Their mothers were murdered, never had a ghost of a chance. And we are going back to that. No. The houses that are being built to-day, and by the hon. Member for Cathcart by the way, are not as well built, he said. That does not say very much for him. One of the biggest contractors that we have in the West Scotland for building these selfsame houses for us is the hon. Member for Cathcart. He tells us that the houses that are being built to-day are not as well built. If they are shoddy it can be taken from me that that is not the workers' fault; it is the fault of the hon. Member's class for having built these shoddy houses. That is proof of what I have said over and over again. I would have forgiven them had they not known how to build good houses for my class. But they knew always how to build good houses. But the single apartment, the brick rows, no pantiles, simply 'an old wagon roof, good enough for a collier but not good enough for the hon. Member for Cathcart. He must get a great mansion away out in the country. And he built these houses in his time, made all that money in his time out of working-class houses. Now he tells the world how he has managed to make a fortune in his day and generation out of building working-class houses. He says that the houses being built to-day are shoddy houses compared with what his father built before him. If ever there was an indictment of the whole system, here we have it. "Oh that mine enemy would write a book."

Mr. MAXTON: It will be in the OFFICIAL REPORT to-morrow.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: My hon. Friend reminds that it will be in the OFFICIAL REPORT to-morrow, and will be used as evidence against the hon. Member. I do not want to irritate the hon. Member in any way, but I am not going to sit silently here and listen to men who are in comfortable circumstances. It is one of the terrible evils abroad to-day that
men who started life hard up against it are now in comfortable circumstances. Their outlook changes because they are comfortable and because they have 20-apartment or 30-apartment houses. The hon. Member for Cathcart views everything from that standpoint. I remember when Dr. Addison as Minister of Health, after the War, set out to raise the standard of housing in this country. He gave my country a new outlook in life because our standard in Scotland up to then was a two-apartment standard. The vast majority of houses in Scotland—65 per cent. of them—were of that standard. This is what the hon. Member for Cathcart boasts about. When Dr. Addison came on the scene he got an Act of Parliament passed providing that the smallest house in this country—which included Scotland, thank God—must have three apartments. What happened? The ruling class of this country recognised that if Scotland was going to get a three-apartment standard of housing, it meant a three-apartment standard of life. It meant that our women folk would demand—

Sir H. YOUNG: On a point of Order. For the guidance of the House in this Debate, I should be glad of your assistance, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, in finding out whether we shall be in order in discussing general housing policy on this occasion. The application to the Bill seems very remote if there be any application at all, and it opens up a very wide question.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I think the hon. Member for Dumbarton Burghs (Mr. Kirkwood) is getting rather wide of the issue before the House. In Clause 12 (1, c) of the Bill there is a provision that the responsible authority has certain powers as to regulating the size, height, design and elevation of buildings, and the materials to be used in their construction. If the hon. Member confines his argument to pointing out what Scottish authorities may do to comply with that Sub-section, I think he is in order. I do not think that any general discussion of housing would be in order.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: I have no desire to fall foul of the Chair, but the very fact that the Minister has had to draw your attention to this matter, Mr. Deputy-
Speaker, shows that I was making it awkward for him, never mind the hon. Member for Cathcart, to reply to me. What I was saying was God's truth, and "truth cutteth keener than a two-edged sword."

Mr. MAXTON: But it is not in order on this Clause.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: I was replying to the hon. Member for Cathcart without deviation either to the right or to the left—although I am supposed to be very far on the left. The hon. Member referred to the houses which were being built now and said that they were not as good as the houses which were built previously, and I wished to take hon. Members back to the inception of the type of house now being built. It was Dr. Addison who introduced that higher standard of housing particularly in Scotland. We were down to the level of single apartment houses—single apartment houses for the working class, and 30-apartment houses for the Cathcart class, and the ruling class recognised that the new standard meant a three-apartment standard of dress, a three-apartment type of education for the children, as against a single apartment standard. But it was found by the ruling class that they could not give that standard of life and at the same time meet the interest on the War debt.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I think the hon. Member is now going beyond my Ruling. If he will point out what the Scottish town planning authorities can do to assist in the production of a particular type of house, I think he will be in order.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: I do not want to use too much time and I leave, that point, but before I conclude there is another point on which I wish to correct the hon. Member for Cathcart. He is my fellow-countryman and he is in the habit of addressing meetings, and I hope that he will not again use the phrase which he used when he called our national bard "Rabbie" Burns. Robert Burns was never by anybody connected with him called "Rabbie." He was always designated Robert Burns. "Rabbie" in Scotland is a term that is used to the "half-daft" fellow about the village or
the colliery. With that, I think I have corrected the hon. Member for Cathcart sufficiently for one sitting.

Captain WATER HOUSE: As a mere Anglo-Saxon, it is not for me to interfere in a perfectly good Celtic row, and I do not propose to pursue the subjects either of murdered mothers or of the building of shoddy houses, beyond saying that if the late friend of the hon. Member for Dumbarton Burghs (Mr. Kirkwood) had long had control of the department over which he ruled for a couple of years there would be no houses at all for anybody to live in, in any part of this country, either England or Scotland. I am sorry that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Greenwood) is not in his place. I was not surprised that in the two speeches which he made this afternoon he hardly referred to the pith of this Bill at all, but dealt largely with those of us who happen to be sitting on this bench at the moment. He spoke of us as "twittering sparrows." He said we had not had the courage to vote against the Second Reading. He described us as a Diehard tail wagging a National dog, and made various other remarks of that sort. It occurred to me when he referred to us as "twittering sparrows" that it was possibly better to be associated with that small and rather light variety of bird than with the croaking raven, like the right hon. Gentleman who comes round occasionally to make remarks which do not help in the Debate or the elucidation of a difficult subject like this. As for having the courage of our convictions, surely anybody sitting on the Front Opposition Bench at present is in a rather doubtful position in talking about the courage of convictions, and most of all the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wakefield. If he had had the courage of his convictions, and the courage to carry out his job as he should have done, his place would not have been empty, and he might have been able to carry through this Measure which he introduced into the House last year.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: His place is not empty. There is another Member occupying it.

Captain WATERHOUSE: I was not thinking of the right hon. Gentleman's position as Minister of Health, but of his position as the representative of Nelson
and Colne. I wondered at the time how he came to lose that constituency, and why there was such a turnover of votes against him.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: It is difficult to associate the right hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Greenwood) and his last constituency with anything contained in this Bill.

Captain WATERHOUSE: I bow to your Ruling. I should have thought it equally difficult to associate us with twittering sparrows, and Mr. Speaker took that as a perfectly orderly and correct remark, but, in deference to your Ruling, I will leave that point. The right hon. Member for Wakefield told us that he represented the architects, the local authorities, and practically all bodies interested in all things good for all people, and I am not surprised, therefore, that the electors of his late constituency thought he represented enough people without them. I am only pained that he is not in the House now to put me right if, in any remark that I am about to make, I may at all overstep the mark. He said with truth that it was a very different Bill that we are now discussing from the Bill which left the Committee in 1931.
There were inserted in the Bill upstairs some 86 Amendments and a new Schedule. I have not counted the Amendments put in on the Floor of this House on the Report stage, but they are certainly largely over 100, and another new Schedule. We had upstairs a good many disagreements. We did not see eye to eye from the start, but I believe that my right hon. Friend and my hon. Friend below me will agree that we put up no factious opposition and no dilatory Amendments, and that we were able in some material directions to persuade the Minister that our contentions were well founded. The right hon. Member for Wakefield charged the Minister with making concessions out of fear, or words to that effect. It does not seem to have occurred to him that the Minister may have made them from arguments put to him which carried weight. Members opposite are not used to bending to argument. They are only used to bending to the mailed fist of those who hunt them along from outside this House, so we for-
give the right hon. Member for Wakefield for his little mistake in my right hon. Friend's attitude.
I would remind the House that the Prime Minister, when he sat here leading the Socialist party, appealed, not once, but many times, to the House of Commons to become a Council of State, and I think that on this Bill we have come nearer to following his advice than on any other Measure that I have known since I have been in this House, but I find it rather hard when, on this occasion, we made that effort, that we were chided by those in authority. The Bill has been materially altered, but I still think that it is ill-timed and that it has a very great many imperfections in it. Yet real results have been achieved in Committee, and I should like to take this opportunity of expressing my thanks to the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary for the way in which they went out of their way to understand the points which we put. Where they could, they made a real endeavour to meet us; where they could not, they gave us a courteous and a reasoned refusal; and, with all humility, I should like sincerely to congratulate them both on the way in which the Bill was handled upstairs.
9.0 p.m.
The right hon. Member for Wakefield said that there was no doubt that the Bill as it is now is a considerable advance on the existing law. I think it is a very material advance, and an advance in many ways in the right direction. When the Bill was first brought down, it was a moot question whether or not we should oppose it root and branch, and we decided not to do so. The Bill repeals the Act of 1925, and we believed we could make it a better Measure than that of 1925. I suggest that in material directions we have succeeded in gaining that objective. The Bill today covers a far wider scope than the 1925 Act, which is to be repealed. That has been fully discussed already, and I will not enter into the merits or demerits of Clause 6 at this stage, but there are other and no less important directions in which the 1925 Act has been modified. For example, the sanction of a Minister to a scheme under that Act made it operative; to-day a scheme has to be laid on the Table of this House. We might not think the lying on the Table sufficient, but it
is an advance. We would have preferred an affirmative Resolution, but failing that, it is a real advance to have schemes laid on the Table of the House rather than made operative by a Government Department.
Under the 1925 Act it was laid down that the Minister might make regulations; in this Bill we have got inserted provisions as to the sort of regulations which he shall make. We have a skeleton of procedure, a minimum of procedure. We have also got laid down certain stipulations. They were not new ones at all; they were stipulations already enforced, but we had in view a Minister not so well grounded in constitutional matters as he who now presides over that Department, and we think it is a real advantage to the country and to town planning that we should have a skeleton procedure incorporated in this Bill. We have dealt too with the compensation Clauses and, I think, dealt with them in a way which should help and not hinder real planning. Under the 1925 Act it was impossible to get any compensation for injurious affection during the interim period; to-day such compensation can be paid, and I believe that the fact that such compensation is payable will make local authorities very chary of refusing interim development orders and, therefore, will tend to promote and not retard development. Again, no compensation was payable in respect of schemes under resolutions subsequently revoked; to-day, compensation is there payable. Finally, various alterations rather in the other direction have been made in the categories of injurious affection which could be excluded from compensation under Clause 19. For example, in the 1925 Act it was laid down that the character of the building might be excluded as a matter proper for compensation; that has been modified to external appearance.
I do not wish to weary the House with any comparison of the Measure as it is to-day with the Measure as it was introduced, but I want most definitely to refute the suggestion that has been made and repeated that the 1931 Bill as it left Committee was in any sense an agreed Measure. Anyone who says that was completely misinformed as to the whole attitude of mind of a very large section of Members who sat on that side of the House in that Parliament, and I assure my right hon. Friend, though I think he
needs no assurance, and any doubters that had this Measure as it was introduced at the beginning of this Session been put to a free vote of the House, and had the Members of this House had an opportunity of studying its provisions then as they have had to-day, it would have been refused a Second Reading by a very substantial majority. This Bill leaves the House to-day a far better Measure than when it was introduced. It will now go to another place, and there are a good many Amendments, which we think are desirable, which we hope may be inserted there. It is in the hope and the belief that we shall have on the Statute Book a better Measure than we have had in regard to town planning for the last seven years, that I do not propose to divide the House against the Bill on the Third Reading this evening.

Major MUIRHEAD: As one who sat on the Committee on this Bill last year, but not this year, I have naturally watched with a good deal of interest the somewhat heavy anxiety in this Measure, and particularly the efforts of the Noble Lord the Member for West Derbyshire (Marquess of Hartington) and his associates. Their avowed intention, I believe—and I have been confirmed in that by the speech which we have just heard—was to improve the Bill. There was a danger at one time that it might resolve itself into killing the Bill by kindness, but luckily the Bill escaped that fate, and I am glad of it. I will not say that I agree altogether with the entire conduct of the Noble Lord and his associates, but I think that it has been an undoubted advantage that there should have been such a body of people watchful in a particular direction over the various provisions of this Measure. There is a slight danger that the Bill as we have it now is somewhat overloaded. I agree that a certain number of Amendments and additions to the 1925 Act were needed, but even under the 1925 Act in country districts, for which the Act was admittedly not designed, and where my interest in planning chiefly lies, it was possible to achieve great things provided there were people in the locality of a right disposition to administer the Act.
When we take the new Clause 1 in this Bill coupled with Clause 6, I am bound to say that the case was well put by the Noble Lord the Member for South Dorset
(Viscount Cranborne) when he said that all the talk about it was really much ado about nothing. When I see the elaborate wording and the detailed way in which the objects for which a town-planning scheme should be undertaken are set out, I cannot help regretting the simpler and the more direct language of the 1925 Act. Undoubtedly, we wanted an addition to deal with the new conditions, but the verbiage in this Bill is a little excessive. There is a danger in a Bill of this description that it may become rather like the White Knight in "Alice Through the Looking-Glass." He provided against every possible eventuality, even to having mouse-traps on the toes of his boots, not, as he said, that any mice had ever been there, but one never knew. The trouble was that, having provided himself with that elaborate equipment, every time his horse moved he fell off. In other words, when it came to the main function, the personal factor was somewhat deficient. I do not want to be platitudinous, but I want, when a comprehensive Measure like this is going through the House, to stress as strongly as I can, from a certain amount of practical experience, the value and importance of what we may call the personal factor in matters of planning.
This Measure with all its failings was undoubtedly asked for, and has been anxiously awaited by a large volume of expert planning opinion in the country; and in the hands of those expert planners I am convinced that good use will be made of it. There is a class of person, however, who is responsible for a large amount of the fear of, and consequently of the opposition to, anything in the nature of planning legislation. That is the class of person who treats, and by his words openly indicates, that he means to treat planning legislation as a sort of stick with which to beat somebody or something he personally does not like. Everybody who has been connected with planning matters must know the kind of people who say: "Look at that appalling bungalow, or that bungaloid development with pink roofs. Why do not the Government introduce legislation to make such a thing impossible?" Or he sees some rather unfortunate development, and perhaps he writes to the papers saying: "Why do the Government allow this?" and clamouring for extended legislation.
In point of fact, he probably has not made the least effort or tried to use his influence in his own locality to get the thing improved or put right on the spot. He simply asks for increased legislation so as to make it easier for him, as he thinks, to get his objects achieved without putting forward his best efforts locally in a practical way to get the thing settled in the front line.
I could not help thinking when I heard the hon. Member for the English Universities (Miss Rathbone) speaking earlier in the afternoon and asking for all sorts of committees to be set up, that it is perfectly clear that you cannot by the multiplication of the machinery make up for the shortcomings of individuals. That is the point in planning matters which has to be borne in mind. On the other hand, we come to the attitude of the Noble Lord the Member for West Derbyshire. He says: "Why are we giving so much power to the local authorities?" He has, I think, a low opinion of local authorities generally, and in fact he says: "I, the Noble Lord, am a better planner than any local authority." That may be so.

Sir S. CRIPPS: Hear, hear.

Major MUIRHEAD: I do not know whether the hon. and learned Member opposite applauds because he really thinks that the Noble Lord is a better planner.

Sir S. CRIPPS indicated dissent.

Major MUIRHEAD: It is clear that, if the Noble Lord says that, he must answer the corollary question: "Is every landowner, great or small, as good a planner as the Noble Lord?" Unless he can answer that equally satisfactorily, there is a case for something to be done. I am sorry that the Noble Lord is not here, but one of his lieutenants is, and he will no doubt, if he thinks it worth while, report my remarks to him. The Noble Lord overlooked in one respect the value of the local authority. It is the value which the local authority has when it comes to the planning of rural areas. A great deal that is ugly, inconvenient and uneconomical is often done by people who have no particular desire to do an ugly or an inconvenient or an uneconomical thing, but they do it on their
own, and very often they have had no other point of view put before them before the matter is completed. It gets done. Very likely there is a storm of protest all round. People say that it is ugly, in the wrong place, or that it is beginning a wrong type of development, and there is a good deal of personal recrimination. Often the man who does the thing wishes that instead of there being all this protest after the event he might have had the benefit of a little advice before it. In the end there is the maximum of recrimination with, possibly, the minimum of efficiency.
When, however, such a proposal comes to a local authority which has a planning scheme, though it may not be a particularly enlightened authority, there is a sort of point fixe on which the various interests can concentrate. There may be slight delay before the matter is settled, but various points of view can be expressed, and the chances are that in the end you get a very much better result. The planning committee has the advantage of providing a rallying point for a great deal of the disinterested service and advice which one knows is so characteristic of public life in our country and in our urban districts. You get people coming in with offers of money or advice or service in one direction or another, because the local authority has become a rallying point for those offers of service. To make my point plain, I might quote a case with which I had a certain distant connection, and that is the planning scheme which is being undertaken in Oxfordshire by the Witney and District Town Planning Committee. That is probably about as typical an instance of county planning as one could get.
Witney is a small market town, with a small industry in it as well, and all round there is the perfectly rural country of the Cotswolds and the Thames Valley. There can hardly be a more typical instance of country planning done under the 1925 Act, incomplete as that may have been. One of the things the committee benefited from was that a local architect, with a great deal of architectural and planning experience, placed his services voluntarily at the disposal of the committee, and looked over the plans which had been submitted to the committee from a planning point of view. Without a
planning committee those plans would merely have been considered from the ordinary sanitary by-law point of view. Between the time when that scheme was started, in June, 1929, and the present month, under the Interim Development Order, 242 plans of buildings have been put before that committee. In 191 cases various alterations, either in siting or design, have been recommended, and in no less than 180 of those cases the recommendations have been readily, and in a great many cases gladly, accepted by those who submitted the plans. Only in 11 cases has there been any difficulty at all. Without any annoyance or inconvenience to anyone there are 180 instances in that area where things are better than they would have been otherwise. To show that there is no great measure of dissatisfaction, when the preliminary inquiry was held there were only four objections, and all those have been settled.
It is because the local authority, even though it may not be particularly enlightened in itself, forms a basis for a discussion in the public interest that I think the local authority is so valuable an element in our planning structure. This Bill, if it becomes law, will place a very comprehensive piece of legislation in the hands of the public. By itself the Bill will not work magic or wonders, although a certain class of person thinks it will. It is only by personal effort in each person's locality that the Bill will ever be made effective, and I hope that when it becomes an Act it will obtain in many localities throughout the length and breadth of England personal effort and assistance of a very high order.

Mr. M. BEAUMONT: The speech of the hon. and gallant Member for Wells (Major Muirhead) only confirms the opinion I already hold that the Standing Committee lost considerably through not having the hon. Member as one of its number. My first acquaintance with the hon. and gallant Member was when I was successful in getting my own local authority to turn down a planning scheme which he was urging upon it. Ever since I have been aware of his knowledge and ability on this subject. He quoted a case where county planning had been extremely successful, and I can confirm every word of what he said, but that case is not
typical of town planning generally, but of the best type of planning, and it depends, as he himself has said, on the personal influence and service given to it. It is because we do not believe that in the country as a whole local authorities are capable of obtaining such service—and I could give instances where planning scheme have lowered values, disorganised industry and created great injustice—and because we believe there will be as-many, if not more, of those than there-will be of the type described by the hon. and gallant Member, that we are opposing this Bill. The right hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Greenwood) who, after having said many unpleasant things in the course of the afternoon, has not seen fit to be in his place to hear the reply—

Sir S. CRIPPS: Perhaps I may say that the right hon. Gentleman asked me to state that unfortunately he has had to leave to speak at a meeting outside which he had promised to address, and was unable to remain here.

Mr. BEAUMONT: Then I should like to be allowed to withdraw any aspersion I was casting upon the right hon. Gentleman. But he paid to those of us who have been associated in this matter what I consider to be a very high tribute. If we have succeeded in doing something that is disliked by him, by the hon. Member for Central Southwark (Mr. Horobin) and by the hon. Lady who sits for the English Universities (Miss Rathbone), I feel that we may justly be proud of our work. One thing he said which is perfectly true, and that is that we are un-repentent. When this Bill was first introduced it was, in my opinion, vicious in principle, unnecessary, ineffective, extravagant and tyrannous. Well, it is a better Bill now, because it is no longer tyrannous, though I think it merits all the other remarks. I am not going to labour the point now, but we discussed last night the question of extravagance. We believe it is going to put a charge upon the rates at a time when no such charge ought to be laid upon them. Our view was voiced by an hon. Member for one of the Scottish divisions who said that at the last election we never thought we should be called upon to support such a Measure as this. We believe that it will be ineffective, because we think that the local authorities, who by their council houses have disgraced the Cotswold
villages to which the right hon. Gentleman referred. I see that the right hon. Gentleman shakes his head, and in that case I ask him to believe that I must know his own district better than he does, because I can take him to a village which has been spoiled by council houses—

Sir S. CRIPPS: You have not seen ours!

Mr. BEAUMONT: I am sure the hon. and learned Gentleman keeps safe ward over his own village, a safer ward than he will allow any of us to keep over our villages, because under this legislation the local authority is a sort of tyrant over anyone who has his own ideas as to what is best. We think that the powers of local authorities, particularly small local authorities, in this matter should be diminished instead of being increased, because we believe that the era of taking the ratepayers' money in order to spend it on curtailing their liberty has passed. That is what this Bill will do. We do not think it is possible, so far as country planning is concerned, to stop the development of the countryside, even if it were desirable. It is impossible to prevent such instances as were given by the hon. Member for Central Southwark, because, as building grows and industries develop, so the countryside will undoubtedly grow less and less. It may be well, and it is well, that it should do so in an orderly and a reasoned fashion, but the local authorities, and certainly the rural district councils, are not capable, we believe, even if they were willing, to arrest that development. We think that if planning is to be done, it must be done on an entirely different principle.
We regard this Bill as ineffective, as tyrannous, because it gives an essentially petty body extended powers over private property, and extravagant because it gives more money to be spent in this way. Finally, I wish to rebut the suggestion that public opinion as a whole is on the side of the Bill. It is certainly true that some town planners and local authorities, and some of those people who seek to gain, and some who merely have a passion for putting their noses into other people's business, demand this Bill. In a sense it has been a contest between the town planner 'and town planning. Those
with whom I have been associated in this matter are not ashamed to have taken up the side of town planning.

Sir H. YOUNG: The hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. M. Beaumont) exhausted his vocabulary of abusive epithets on the Bill, and reserved the single word tyrannous for his repetition of the catalogue. I note, therefore, from his observations, what I have had some reason to suspect throughout the proceedings, that he has not a very high opinion of the Bill. At this stage of the proceedings there are very few words which it is useful for me to add. I should like to say I was immensely encouraged by the speech of the right hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Greenwood). I feel quite sure that, with his close association with the previous Measure of this sort, if there is anything solid to be said against this Measure as an effective Measure of town planning, he would have said it; but, as a matter of fact, he did nothing of the sort. Instead, he indulged only in vague generalities of abuse of it which are of no great assistance to the House. We could have desired him to have given the Measure rather closer study and to have justified, by some reference to it, the terms of opprobium which he used. The greater part of his speech consisted of a series of self-congratulations on the preceding Measure.
9.30 p.m.
I am, indeed, sorry in any way to prick so brilliant a bubble of self-esteem. I can but say—and this is the appropriate occasion to say it—that the Measure in the form in which he left it and in the form in which I introduced it had imperfections. Why was it introduced in that form? For the reason that it was in that form that it had been passed by the House. I should have considered it as implying disrespect, if after the House had passed the Measure in a certain form, I had taken it upon myself to alter the form before it was re-introduced. What is it that has been done in Committee? The right hon. Gentleman said the Bill had been weakened. I waited for the analysis of his argument in support of that, but I found none at all. The account given by the hon. and gallant Member for South Leicester (Captain Waterhouse) was perfectly accurate. The subsequent changes made in the Bill are these: There has been a. change in the
areas that may be planned, a matter which has been so fully discussed that it would be disrespectful to the House for me to repeat the arguments now. There has been a change in the provisions as to compensation in the interim period. That is a refinement which has emerged from argument and criticism in Committee. It is, I think, a matter for congratulation that the proceedings in this respect have resulted in improving the Bill. Then there has been the change in respect of the Clause regarding betterment, by which payment of betterment is now made, in substance, to be coincident only with realisation of betterment. I have no hesitation in saying that the change will make the Bill easier and smoother to work, and is for the better.
Finally, there have been important changes in procedure which secure to this House the power of vigilantly watching the schemes made under the Bill and of securing the ultimate right of appeal to the High Court of Parliament to any persons who feel themselves so aggrieved as to bring their grievance here. I make no apology for securing that right. In all these matters I believe we have strengthened the Bill as a practical Measure of town planning, and I think it is a matter for congratulation that this has been achieved by the sensible process of putting our heads together so that we have succeeded in making improvements in a very difficult matter. This particular region of legislation is a new region in which nobody can hope, without consultation, to arrive at the best solution. That is what the House exists for—to bring the confluent streams of experience, knowledge and thought to bear upon a Measure, and particularly upon a Measure which covers a new region of legislation. And when we find that we gain advantage from our proceedings in Committee, I think that is a matter which should make us proud of the House of Commons, and not ashamed of any of our procedure.
I have only one other word to say on the Bill before it leaves us. The House is, most naturally, gravely preoccupied with economic considerations in present conditions. It feels itself deeply concerned to make sure that no Measure is passed which involves extravagance, waste or even unnecessary expenditure at present; at the same time, I believe it is pro-
foundly conscious that expenditure is necessary where it will have the direct effect of increasing the actual national wealth. It is because I am sure that the powers of this Bill, wisely exercised and properly controlled, will have the effect of increasing the national wealth, that I believe this to be a Measure appropriate to the present time.
Let me put what I have finally to say in the form of a simple comparison. Who that is about to build a house but knows that it is a prudent and wise thing to employ some skilled person, called an architect, to make the plans for his house before he builds it? He knows that if he does not, he is liable to get the cellarage mixed up with the attics, and to get the windows opening indoors instead of out. He employs a skilled person to make the plans. Well he knows that the small percentage of the total cost which he pays in fees to that man for his house, is really the greatest possible insurance of economy that he can effect. The great structure of our national home is a building which is strictly analogous to that lesser building to which I have referred, in this circumstance, that here we have a great structure whose planning requires expert knowledge. The experience of all who are practically concerned in this sort of administration teaches that the small percentage of the total cost of development that we should pay, and that we will pay, in the form of charges for planning ahead, will be the greatest possible insurance of economy and the best development of our national assets in the future. On all these grounds, I commend this Measure to the House. It has received very full discussion, in Committee and on the Floor of the House during the Report stage, and now in this Third Reading Debate, I think the House is ready to come to a decision on the Bill.

Orders of the Day — PATENTS AND DESIGNS BILL [Lords].

Order for Second Reading read.

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Hore-Belisha): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
I hope that the House will approve of the method of presentation which we have adopted in connection with the Bill which I now introduce. A White Paper has been laid which sets out, in what might be termed consolidated form, the whole of the legislation relating to patents and designs, so that it is possible to read it in sequence as a narrative. By employing varying types of print, we have been able to show where the text remains unaltered, where it is proposed to omit certain words or passages from the text and where it is proposed to make insertions in the text. In this way we have avoided the evils attaching to legislation by reference, which has been so much criticised.
In our consideration for the convenience and time of the House, and of those interested in these matters, we have added in the Bill, in the margin after each Clause, certain figures in brackets indicating passages in the Report of the Departmental Committee upon which the Clauses are based. The Bill is to give effect to the recommendations of the Departmental Committee. The Committee was appointed in May, 1929, and it reported in March, 1931. In those two years, it made an exhaustive examination of all the legislation connected with patents and designs, and heard evidence from every quarter. The constitution of the Committee was such as to ensure that the members had particular qualifications to make sound recommendations to the Board of Trade. It was presided over by Sir Charles Sargant, a former Lord Justice of Appeal. I think we have followed their advice almost entirely. The Committee was appointed by the last Conservative Government; its main recommendations had the approval of the Labour Government, and we have seen no reasons to dissent. On the contrary, we have seen every reason to advance those recommendations in our desire to improve the status of patents in this country.
The actual proposals are, of course, intricate and technical, but the House will be able to follow them, because of the method of presentation to which I have referred. Some of the Clauses are merely a statement of the existing law; Clause 3, for example, which sets out the grounds upon which patents may be revoked. Other Clauses, such as Clauses 11 and 6, remove certain weaknesses
which have been disclosed in our present practice. I do not think that I need fully explain to the House what those weaknesses were, for they are so fully examined in the report of the Departmental Committee. There are, however, two major changes in the. law to which I deem it my duty to make some reference. The first relates to the area of search. As the House is aware, when application is made on behalf of an invention for a patent, it becomes the duty of the Comptroller of Patents to make a search—I am now dealing with Clause 2. The scope of the search is at present statutorily confined to the public specifications deposited in applications made in the United Kingdom within the previous 50 years. That is to say, the Comptroller may look only at British specifications filed in the previous half century. Anyone who, at a later stage, wishes to take objection to the patent, may cite other documents, and disprove the novelty of the claim. Accordingly, we propose to allow the Comptroller, at his-discretion, in the future to extend his search to any document other than British specifications in which he is of opinion that a possible anticipation may be found. It may be that this will involve the Comptroller in some additional expense, and it is only right that that expense should fall upon the shoulders of those who benefit from his labours. Consequently it is made permissive to increase the fee; charged on the filing of the complete specification, by up to one pound, and this will cover any further cost which may be incurred.
The second major change concerns the jurisdiction of my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General. As the law stands to-day, there is an appeal from the Comptroller, at any moment up to the granting of the patent, to the Law Officer of the Crown. He is the judicial authority. His authority is a historic authority, and is not founded on utility. We propose to remove that authority from him, and to transfer it to a Judge of the High Court, a judge who will he appointed because of his knowledge and experience in Patent Law. This, of course, is not to lay any criticism upon the manner in which the Law Officers of the Crown have hitherto adjudicated. There is no reason to believe that their decisions have given anything but com-
plete satisfaction. Apart from that consideration, the House will bear in mind that Law Officers come and Law Officers go. They change with each Government, but judges, or at any rate some of them, seem to go on for ever. Perhaps I should say that the Judicature is permanent, whereas the Law Officers of the Crown are not, and, therefore, I trust that the House will agree that it is a convenient as well as a logical change that the jurisdiction now exercised by my hon. and learned Friend shall be transferred to a Judge of the High Court.
Those who have had audience hitherto before the Law Officers of the Crown may have been either counsel or solicitors or patent agents, and we do not propose to deprive the parties to an appeal of such representation as they have hitherto enjoyed. It will, therefore, be possible for them to instruct counsel or solicitors or patent agents to appear before the learned judge, just as they have instructed one of these categories to represent them before my hon. and learned Friend. I hope that this will not involve any increased commitment to the taxpayer. There is no reason why it should. There are only about 36 appeals in any given year, and the staff at the Law Courts ought to be quite adequate to deal with the slightly heavier work which we shall cast upon them. I do not think, therefore, that the economists need have any fear that the taxpayer will have to pay a greater contribution.
These are the major proposals of the Bill to which I deemed it my duty to refer. These two major proposals, coupled with the other Clauses of which I have made a cursory note in passing, do, in the opinion of those qualified to judge, definitely put the British patent on as high a basis as that claimed to be enjoyed by any other patent in any other part of the world.

Major PROCTER: Doubtless there will be opportunities of discussing in detail the various Clauses of this Bill. Tonight I should like briefly to call attention to the wonderful opportunity that was presented to us of producing a monumental Measure which would make British patent law at least equal to any patent law in the world. Despite what the Parliamentary Secretary has just said, I beg leave to join issue with his statement that this Measure will make
the standard of the British patent equal to that of any other in the world. At the moment the monopoly which is granted by a British patent is infinitely weaker than that granted by Germany, and far more expensive than that granted by America; and the search, of which the hon. Gentleman has just spoken, which is undertaken by the examiners, is not as efficient as in either of the two countries which I have just named. One of the weaknesses of this Measure is that discretionary, and only discretionary, power is given to the examiner to make a search in those countries in which he thinks there might be the possibility of anticipation. What is the effect of this; and what is the effect of the law as it is at present?
An inventor may apply for a patent in this country. He may be a poor man—many inventors are poor men. The search is made, and he is granted a patent, not because he has produced any new technical effect, as is the case in Germany, but because he has made some slight improvement, which in his opinion is a real improvement. He applies for the patent, a search is made over the last 50 years, and then he goes away rejoicing. He may find some financier who will put his money into that patent, only to discover that, after the expenditure of, perhaps, thousands of pounds on the part of the financier, and the work of many years on the part of the inventor, the monopoly which he has been granted by the British Government is not worth the paper on which it is written, because it has been anticipated in some other country where the examiner has no statutory power to look for such an anticipation.
Therefore, it seems to me that the word "discretionary" should be expunged from the Bill, and that we should do what America and Germany do, namely, make a world-wide search, so that the man who has not the resources that the Patent Office has can avail himself of those resources and enlist the aid of the examiners in amending his specification so as to meet possible anticipations in other countries, and thereby make his patent a valid patent. If this were done, a British patent would then be equal, in the estimation of those whose business it is to exploit patents, to a German or an American patent. I am sure it would be a source of pride to this National Government if, instead of the inquiry
being made, as it is at present, "Have you a German patent?"—because that is the highest of all patents from the viewpoint of validity—the financier will say, "Have you a British patent?" and that will be the hall-mark of the validity of a patent monopoly.
Then there is the wonderful concession that has been given, that, for an increased fee of only one guinea per year, this discretionary power will be exercised, not if the inventor desires it, but if the examiner or the Comptroller desires it. I would call the attention of the House to the fact that one of the most expensive patents in the world is the British patent. It has been said, I think by the President of the Board of Trade, that the inventor is of far greater worth than the politician. At any rate, if we look at the history of our country, we shall see that the milestones that measure its advancement are the inventions that have been produced by our countrymen—poor men like Arkwright, Compton, and the rest, who made it possible for 44,000,000 people to live in a country that is only capable of sustaining by its own resources 12,000,000. And yet how greatly were these men penalised! An inventor—he may be a workman—has to pay £155 for every patent that he produces. If he takes out a patent this year, and then makes a slight improvement next year, for each patent that he takes out £155 is demanded as tribute by the British Government in order to give him a monopoly and protection for 14 years, after which period his invention is added to the storehouse of wealth of the people of England to use. In America the fee is £8, and that includes a world-wide search.
I hope the House will not be satisfied with the Bill. While many learned men well versed in patent law have been con suited, I do not know whether any inventors have been brought into their consultations. It seems to have been made by lawyers in the interest of lawyers and not in the interest of inventors, and especially poor inventors. I suggest that it might be possible for the Government to see at the forthcoming Ottawa Conference if it is not possible to get an inter-British Empire patent, so that, instead of a man having to take out a patent in England and others, if he wants
protection, in the Irish Free State, Ceylon, India and every one of our Possessions separately, he could have one all-comprehensive patent which will give him protection throughout the British Empire. I hope at a later stage to make some suggestions whereby the inventor will get a better deal than the Bill gives him. The Patent Office has been a great source of income throughout the years. I hope, if it is a question of economy, that it may be found possible to reduce the holidays of some of the officials and give the inventor the benefit of this increase of £l that you are putting on him, and you will have done something to help the cause of invention upon which we so much depend.

Lieut.-Commander ASTBURY: There is one Clause in this Bill which, if passed into law, will do palpable harm to the cotton trade of Lancashire. It is Clause 53 (3), the effect of which is to cut down the present 15 years' duration of a patent to 10 years. When I tell the Parliamentary Secretary that for the third five years we are paying 20 times as much as for the first, it will be apparent to him that we are placing a great value on the last five years. These designs are to a great extent for foreign nations, and they are for those nations where we are facing the fierce competition of Japanese trade. If we cannot get these designs retained for the five years, it means that the Japanese can come in and more readily cut us out. In most other countries the duration is for 15 years. In France it is for 50. When I tell my hon. Friend that in China alone there are designs going today which were put on 100 years ago, he will, perhaps, realise the great safeguard that it is to those concerned in the trade of Lancashire. I am not speaking simply on my own behalf; I am speaking on behalf of the Federation of Calico Printers and of the merchants in Lancashire. I raise the question to see if my hon. Friend will give the matter serious consideration between now and the Committee stage.

10.0 p.m.

Sir F. FREMANTLE: I want to raise the question of the patenting of food and drugs and to call attention to a point of great and growing importance which is omitted from the Bill designedly because of the difficulty of the subject. I should
like to ask for some explanation of the attitude of the Ministry in regard to this most important point. I do not think it is sufficiently known that the patenting of a large number of the most important medical drugs and medicines recently discovered is subject to a patent law which has, unfortunately, put our research at the mercy of certain foreign countries. The position is extraordinary. I think most people will know the vital difference to the food of the country between fresh butter and margarine. Margarine is coming more and more into use, naturally enough, and yet it has been discovered of recent years that what it really lacks is a certain substance called vitamin D. The discovery of vitamin D was made only a few years ago, and it was due to research in this country when it was discovered how, by the use of ultra violet rays, it could be produced out of a certain material called ergosterol. Unfortunately the patent for the manufacture of this vital material was taken out by Professor Steenbock, a worker in an American university, and it is known as the Steenbock patent. It gave patent rights over not only America but all other countries, including this country, for all forms of manufacture of vitamin D. Professor Steenbock gave the patent rights over to the university. The university submitted it to a committee, and it is run by the committee for the benefit of that university.
The patent rights are made out with definite conditions in this country which are found to be very hampering to research. It is considered that the patent ought not to cover the more modern processes, which have not been discovered there but here, and would, as is the custom in this country, be given to the research workers for their free use. The university has built up very large sums. It is a wealthy corporation and no one cares to challenge its rights. It is extracting large royalties from all who use this process of treatment of our food, and it is also hampering our research work. A large amount of the very best work is done in these subjects by the big manufacturing houses, but they find it worth while to pay the royalty rather than fight a corporation of that sort. They pay the royalties themselves and pass it on to the consumer, so that our consumers suffer because our patent
rights are not sufficient to protect us against the patent rights taken out in America.
In the same kind of way we are at the mercy of a foreign patent with regard, for instance, to the subject of insulin. When insulin was discovered in Canada, the patent right was given over to a Canadian University, which most nobly gave it to our Government. Our Government passed it on to the Medical Research Council, and they are able to use the patent rights in insulin and to prevent any commercialisation of it, which would have been fatal to a large number of our people, and they have seen that it is properly used and produced. There is a third product, the discovery of Dr. and Mrs. Dick working together in Chicago. They discovered the streptococcus of scarlet fever, the toxin and the antitoxin serum. They took out patent rights and gave them to the University of Chicago. They were used commercially and mercilessly by the committee running the trust, and the result has been to hinder and very largely to stop research in this country.
These matters were put before the Board of Trade by the Medical Research Council three years ago with a view to giving evidence before the Departmental Committee upon whose report the Bill is founded, yet no action has been taken officially to incorporate their representations in this Measure. I maintain that that is a serious blot, although there may be good reasons for their omission. Perhaps it may be one of expediency. It is a very difficult subject, and I feel that the matter requires considerable explanation. If the Board of Trade are able to give good reasons for not including this most important principle in the Measure, I hope that they will be able to give some kind of undertaking that they are seriously considering the matter, which goes right to the root of the health of the people of the country. It is a matter which requires investigation even if it cannot be brought in as an Amendment to the Bill. A conference was called by the British Medical Association and it was attended by the President of the College of Surgeons and Physicians and members of the Medical Research Council and the matter was gone into. They came to the conclusion that they would first of all see the Board of Trade, and, having
seen them, they were asked to consider whether it was advisable to move an Amendment to the Measure. We have been asked not to move any Amendment at the present time. We can only implement that undertaking if we are given some pledge from the Board of Trade that they recognise the seriousness of the position.
The matter requires a good deal of international work, and a good deal of thought as to what we can do in this country. The medical profession definitely maintain that the results of research should be open to everybody and be above board, and it should be applied to universal use, and that there should be no patent rights whatever. As regards what are called animal medicines and products, vitamins, sera, anti-toxins and the rest of them, no patents should be allowed which are a disadvantage to other countries. As regards synthetic compounds made by chemical drug houses and so on, it would be impossible that patents should not be given for those purposes, but as a common practice, and a right one in this and other countries medical men should not be allowed to take out patents to make a profit out of them. It should be compulsory, as the conference suggested, that patents for such articles for medical use should be dedicated to universities or some public trust or body for general use. We require legislation to deal with all these matters. No doubt the League of Nations and their work and international matters come in, but it takes a long time to get anything through the League of Nations as we know full well, or internationally. In the meantime we ought to act. There are signs that we are not acting, that the Department do not understand these things, and that the Government are paying no attention whatever to them. I hope that we shall receive some explanation from the Board of Trade that they realise the seriousness of the situation and that they will do something to consider the matter in due course.

Sir S. CRIPPS: I did not intend to intervene in the Debate because I thoroughly agree with what is in the Bill, but there is one matter which the hon. Member for St. Albans (Sir F. Fremantle) has mentioned upon which I
should like to say a few words. He has pointed out the difficulty as regards medicines and food products. The difficulty he mentioned with regard to ergosterol I know very intimately from inside information, but there is one way in which the difficulty can be overcome and that is by giving the Government power to expropriate patents. At present the Government have power to take patents, but only for the purpose of war uses; that is to say, if someone invents a particularly poisonous kind of bomb, the Government can acquire it for the purposes of national use, subject, of course, to compensation settled by the Treasury. I do not see any reason why a useful article such as some medical or food product should not also be subject to acquisition by the Government in the same way, and why it should not be capable of being put into safe custody to be used under the auspices of the Medical Research Council or some other such body for the benefit of the whole community.
I would point out to the hon. Member that there might be other cases beside foodstuffs where it might be very desirable for the Government to be able to get the use of patents. Let me take a case which may not necessarily be a case in point, but suppose that the Government decided that they wanted to produce oil from coal or that they wanted to enter into the organisation of a body which could do it, some public utility corporation, at the present time the Government would be practically helpless because of the patents which would stand in the way. There would be no power to acquire and expropriate those patents for the purposes of some such national utility corporation. The only way by which any powers to use them could be got would be by applying to the Comptroller for a compulsory licence under each of the patents. It would be an unsatisfactory means of doing it. I do not criticise in the slightest degree the Comptroller or the way he exercises his discretion in the matter, but it is done in a way very often which does not succeed. I suggest to the hon. Gentleman that if some Clause could be put into the Bill which would extend the existing power to expropriate patents—patents other than those applied to war purposes—it would enable the Government
to get over the difficulty both as regards foodstuffs and the possible anticipated difficulty as regards other matters. There would be no question of confiscation. The terms would be the same as those which exist as regards war material, and it would really be an extension of the existing powers to cover, if required, other matters besides war material.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL (Sir Boyd Merriman): I do not think that it is necessary for me to reply at great length on the Bill, because no one is seriously threatening to oppose the Second Reading. But, as regards one or two of the criticisms which have been made, I should like, first of all, to answer the point made by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for West Salford (Lieut.-Commander Astbury) who spoke about the curtailing of the period for renewing designs. I need scarcely say that if it can be shown that it is going to have a serious effect upon any particular industry the matter will seriously have to be considered in Committee. But I should like the House to understand that the Clause has been put into the Bill upon the recommendation of the Departmental Committee on the strength of statistics which were put before them to this effect, that the first period of the renewal was only applied for in under 8 per cent. of the eases, and that the second period of renewal of copyright and designs had in practice only been applied for in 1.3 per cent. of the cases. It really does not look, therefore, as if the curtailment of the right to make a second application is one which, prima facie at any rate, is likely very seriously to affect industry.

Lieut.-Commander ASTBURY: Would my hon. and learned Friend allow me to say that; the 8 per cent. is the proportion, or some part of the proportion, which, as I said, deals with designs which we are sending to foreign countries, and those are countries where we find the fiercest competition with the Japanese.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: I need scarcely say that any representation upon that matter which may be made in Committee—I cannot say more than that—will receive further consideration. With regard to the point made by the hon. and gallant Member for St. Albans (Sir F. Fremantle), about research, let me
say that there is already power to compel people who make anything which is the subject of a patent, available for the public service. That, of course, involves the payment of royalties to the inventor. I suggest to the House that there is no reason why a man who has made researches connected with health should be deprived of the result of his researches. Indeed it is not to be expected that he will devote his life to making researches unless he is going to get some reward for it. There is no more reason why a person who has spent his life in research and invention in connection with health should be deprived of the fruits of his labours than should any other inventor. The logical result of my hon. Friend's suggestion is to be seen in the intervention of the hon. and learned Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps), who went further and said that the Government should be able to appropriate inventions of any sort. As the hon. and learned Member knows, there is power under the existing law to enable the Government to appropriate for public service. It is true that there are special provisions with regard to munitions of war, keeping plans secret, etc., but, as I understand the law, there is no more power to appropriate without compensation in the case of munitions than there is in the case of any other invention.

Sir S. CRIPPS: I think I am right—I had not the Statute before me—that the power, although it appears to be a wider power, when one reads the Section, is limited to such things as are useful for war purposes, and so on. That is certainly my impression.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: Wider power is contained in the earlier Section which enables any Government Department at any time to exercise and use an invention for the service of the Crown. That is not one relating only to war service.

Sir S. CRIPPS: But "the service of the Crown" has been interpreted as meaning the Air Force, the Army and the Navy and not as meaning any other service, such as running an electricity plant, or anything of that sort.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: I should not like to be positive about that, but I would point out that it is the next sec-
tion which deals with the question of munitions of war and expressly mentions the War Office, the Admiralty and the Air Service. However that may be, I want to make it perfectly plain that the Government are not prepared, as at present advised, to consider any question of expropriation, without compensation, of any particular form of invention.

Sir S. CRIPPS: I said that I admitted that compensation should be paid on the same terms.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: I was not referring to what the hon. and learned Member said, but to the hon. and gallant Member for St. Albans, who held the view that in regard to any question of health and medical research it should be made open to the public and should not be the subject of patent. The hon. Member for Accrington (Major Procter), who has great experience in these matters, made an appeal for a much wider and ampler Bill. That may be an excellent ideal for the future. This Bill is professively a modest Bill. It is designed to give literal and absolute effect to the recommendations for an amendment of the law which were made by the Departmental Committee. It is nothing more or less than that. We claim that the Bill does this. It may be that something more may be done in the future but we ask the House to-night to let us have this modest Bill.

Dr. O'DONOVAN: There is a great difference in the outlook on life between the legal and the medical profession, and it is because of that that the Solicitor-General has not followed whole-heartedly the lead given him by the hon. Member for St. Albans (Sir F. Fremantle). My profession has always resented any suggestion coming from His Majesty's Government that we have the right to exploit the people. There is no question that patents can be used for exploitation, and the idea that the sons of Hippocrates should be unfaithful to an oath which has been held for over 2,000 years has been made for the first time this evening. To me the suggestion is repulsive. It is true that chemists are entitled to the result of their studies in organic chemistry, but that the results of medical research should be followed by action and that
again protected by patent is a conception which is new to the ideals of medicine. I was grieved to hear it from the Front Bench, and I hope that the point which has been put so boldly by my hon. Friend the Member for St. Albans will be borne in mind by the Government in the future discussions on this Bill.

Orders of the Day — PATENTS AND DESIGNS [EXPENSES].

Considered in Committee under Standing Order 71A.

[Sir DENNIS HERBERT in the Chair.]

Resolved,
That, for the purpose of any Act of the present Session to amend the Patents and Designs Acts, 1907 to 1928, it is expedient to authorise the expenses of the Appeal Tribunal to be constituted under the said Act to be defrayed as if the Tribunal were a Court of the High Court of Justice."—(King's Recommendation signified.)—[Mr. Hore-Belisha.]

Resolution to be reported To-morrow.

Orders of the Day — MARRIAGE (NAVAL, MILITARY AND AIR FORCE CHAPELS) BILL [Lords].

Order for Second Reading read.

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Duff Cooper): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
I do not think the House will desire a long explanation of this Bill. The Bill is entirely non-controversial and simply seeks to enable soldiers and sailors and men of the Air Force to be married in their own chapels. For obvious reasons the vast majority of the Naval, Military and Air Force chapels are not consecrated. That is to enable all denominations to make use of them. But, by the law of the land, marriages cannot take place in unlicensed chapels. This Bill allows the Bishop of the diocese concerned to license the chapels at the request of the First Lord of the Admiralty or the Secretary of State for War or the Secretary of State for Air. The only objection that could possibly be urged
against, the Bill would come, I imagine, from those members of the Church of England whose churches will suffer and will not be used for marriages so much as they have been used before, and who will possibly lose some emoluments which otherwise they might get. The Bill was introduced in another place, where it received the support of the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Bishop of Winchester. They were satisfied that it was for the good both of the Services concerned and of the Church that this reform should be introduced, and they gave it wholehearted support. The Clauses of the Bill have exercised the Parliamentary draftsmen a great deal on account of the complication of our marriage legislation at the
present time, but the principle of the Bill is one which I am sure the House wll support.

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

ADJOURNMENT.

Resolved, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Captain Margesson]

Adjourned accordingly at Twenty-eight Minutes after Ten o'Clock.

BRITISH MUSEUM BILL [Lords].

Read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Thursday, and to be printed. [Bill 93.]

AGRICULTURAL CREDITS (MORTGAGES) BILL [Lords].

Read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Thursday, and to be printed. [Bill 94.]

SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES).

STANDING COMMITTEE C.

Mr. William Nicholson reported from the Committee of Selection; That they had discharged the following Member from Standing Committee C (added in respect of the Fancy Jewellery (Standard Trade Descriptions) Bill): Major Nathan; and had appointed in substitution: Mr. Janner.

Mr. William Nicholson further reported from the Committee; That they had added the following Ten Members to Standing Committee C (in respect of the Gas Undertakings Bill [Lords]: Mr. Ernest Brown, Marquess of Clydesdale, Viscount Elmley, Mr. Emrys-Evans, Mr. George Hall, Mr. Hore-Belisha, Mr. McKeag, Brigadier-General Makins, Mr. Nunn, and Mr. James Reid.

Reports to lie upon the Table.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.

That they have agreed to:

Public Health (Cleansing of Shellfish) Bill,
Goldsmiths' Consolidated Charities Scheme Confirmation Bill,
Ford Street Charity Scheme Confirmation Bill,
Maidstone Bread Charities Scheme Confirmation Bill, Epsom College Scheme Confirmation Bill, without amendment.